<?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 (11) TMI 827 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253510</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for duty demand requires suppression of facts coupled with intent to evade; mere non-payment of duty is insufficient. Where the clearances were recorded in the books of account and the demand was based on those records, the omission was treated as a possible misreading of the exemption notification rather than deliberate suppression. On those facts, invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the demand, interest and penalties were held unsustainable in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2014 12:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369466" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 827 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253510</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for duty demand requires suppression of facts coupled with intent to evade; mere non-payment of duty is insufficient. Where the clearances were recorded in the books of account and the demand was based on those records, the omission was treated as a possible misreading of the exemption notification rather than deliberate suppression. On those facts, invocation of the extended period was not justified, and the demand, interest and penalties were held unsustainable in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253510</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>