<?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>1984 (8) TMI 327 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167130</link>
    <description>The Tribunal unanimously held that the show cause notice issued by the Government of India against M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills was time-barred under Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it exceeded the six-month limitation period for cases of short-levy or non-levy. The interpretation of &quot;levy&quot; and &quot;short levy&quot; was crucial in determining the applicability of the limitation period. Despite a dissenting opinion, the majority decision favored dropping the notice against M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills while upholding the notice against M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills due to the differential treatment of erroneous refund and short-levy cases.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2014 16:53:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=370380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (8) TMI 327 - CEGAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167130</link>
      <description>The Tribunal unanimously held that the show cause notice issued by the Government of India against M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills was time-barred under Section 131(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it exceeded the six-month limitation period for cases of short-levy or non-levy. The interpretation of &quot;levy&quot; and &quot;short levy&quot; was crucial in determining the applicability of the limitation period. Despite a dissenting opinion, the majority decision favored dropping the notice against M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills while upholding the notice against M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills due to the differential treatment of erroneous refund and short-levy cases.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>