<?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>2012 (5) TMI 226 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213317</link>
    <description>Where the assessee had disclosed the relevant declaration and supporting certificate to the department, exemption claimed for goods supplied for use as naval stores could not be treated as suppressed. On those disclosed facts, the allegation of suppression failed and the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation was not made out. The extended period was therefore not invocable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 226 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213317</link>
      <description>Where the assessee had disclosed the relevant declaration and supporting certificate to the department, exemption claimed for goods supplied for use as naval stores could not be treated as suppressed. On those disclosed facts, the allegation of suppression failed and the basis for invoking the extended period of limitation was not made out. The extended period was therefore not invocable, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>