<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (8) TMI 826 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211260</link>
    <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the price list for the impugned clearances had been filed and approved by the department and no suppression of facts was established. On those facts, the show-cause notice issued long after the relevant period was barred by limitation, so the demand was unsustainable without entering the valuation merits. Penalty also could not be imposed because the demand itself failed on limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 826 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211260</link>
      <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the price list for the impugned clearances had been filed and approved by the department and no suppression of facts was established. On those facts, the show-cause notice issued long after the relevant period was barred by limitation, so the demand was unsustainable without entering the valuation merits. Penalty also could not be imposed because the demand itself failed on limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>