<?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 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239067</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of Friends Trading Company, holding that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in the case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits and the extended period, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s contention of misrepresentation in procuring DEPB scripts. It emphasized that the availability of the extended period is a legal issue to be decided based on specific facts, concluding that it was not available to the Revenue in this instance. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s rectification of mistake application, affirming its earlier decision and advising the Revenue to challenge it in a higher forum if dissatisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Nov 2013 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=334501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 244 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239067</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of Friends Trading Company, holding that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in the case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on merits and the extended period, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s contention of misrepresentation in procuring DEPB scripts. It emphasized that the availability of the extended period is a legal issue to be decided based on specific facts, concluding that it was not available to the Revenue in this instance. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s rectification of mistake application, affirming its earlier decision and advising the Revenue to challenge it in a higher forum if dissatisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239067</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>