<?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>2014 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243991</link>
    <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where, during the relevant period, higher judicial forums had already interpreted the law in favour of the assessee, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established. The demand raised beyond the normal limitation period therefore failed, and the related penalty was also unsustainable. A portion of the duty liability was nevertheless found to fall within the normal limitation period, so the matter was remanded only for fresh quantification of that surviving demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:48:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 586 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243991</link>
      <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where, during the relevant period, higher judicial forums had already interpreted the law in favour of the assessee, so suppression or wilful misstatement was not established. The demand raised beyond the normal limitation period therefore failed, and the related penalty was also unsustainable. A portion of the duty liability was nevertheless found to fall within the normal limitation period, so the matter was remanded only for fresh quantification of that surviving demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243991</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>