<?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 (8) TMI 307 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236012</link>
    <description>A demand based on a show cause notice issued for an earlier period was held time-barred because the department already had knowledge of the relevant facts from an earlier audit and related proceedings involving a sister concern. On those facts, the failure to undertake timely investigation against the unit meant the notice could not be sustained within limitation. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected, and the limitation objection was upheld as decisive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Aug 2013 08:52:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198422" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 307 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236012</link>
      <description>A demand based on a show cause notice issued for an earlier period was held time-barred because the department already had knowledge of the relevant facts from an earlier audit and related proceedings involving a sister concern. On those facts, the failure to undertake timely investigation against the unit meant the notice could not be sustained within limitation. The Revenue&#039;s challenge was rejected, and the limitation objection was upheld as decisive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236012</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>