<?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>2013 (6) TMI 298 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234473</link>
    <description>Extended period of limitation cannot sustain a duty demand absent evidence of suppression, misstatement, or other mala fide intent by the assessee. Where the manufacturing process and the likely emergence of blanketing in running length were matters the revenue was expected to know, invocation of the longer limitation period was unsustainable. The demand was therefore set aside as time-barred in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:12:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=196883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (6) TMI 298 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234473</link>
      <description>Extended period of limitation cannot sustain a duty demand absent evidence of suppression, misstatement, or other mala fide intent by the assessee. Where the manufacturing process and the likely emergence of blanketing in running length were matters the revenue was expected to know, invocation of the longer limitation period was unsustainable. The demand was therefore set aside as time-barred in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>