<?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>2011 (6) TMI 685 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246262</link>
    <description>Small-scale exemption under an exemption notification required strict compliance, and substantial compliance was insufficient where the condition formed an integral part of the exemption; the exemption claim therefore failed on merits. The extended period of limitation was not available because the record did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, and the assessee&#039;s bona fide belief negated invocation of the extended period. Penalty also could not be sustained once the extended period failed and the requisite ingredients for penal liability were absent. The matter was remanded for re-quantification of demand confined to the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:27:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 685 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246262</link>
      <description>Small-scale exemption under an exemption notification required strict compliance, and substantial compliance was insufficient where the condition formed an integral part of the exemption; the exemption claim therefore failed on merits. The extended period of limitation was not available because the record did not establish fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty, and the assessee&#039;s bona fide belief negated invocation of the extended period. Penalty also could not be sustained once the extended period failed and the requisite ingredients for penal liability were absent. The matter was remanded for re-quantification of demand confined to the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246262</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>