<?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 (9) TMI 26 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251000</link>
    <description>The SC Tribunal addressed duty demand limitations for advance DTA clearances. The court ruled that the show cause notice issued in July 2009 for the period April 2004 to March 2006 was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The respondent had transparently disclosed their exemption claim through letters and returns. The execution of a B-17 bond did not override the statutory limitation period, and no mis-declaration was found to justify an extended timeline.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2025 10:19:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=364258" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 26 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251000</link>
      <description>The SC Tribunal addressed duty demand limitations for advance DTA clearances. The court ruled that the show cause notice issued in July 2009 for the period April 2004 to March 2006 was time-barred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The respondent had transparently disclosed their exemption claim through letters and returns. The execution of a B-17 bond did not override the statutory limitation period, and no mis-declaration was found to justify an extended timeline.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251000</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>