<?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 (12) TMI 538 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254194</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had filed price declarations disclosing transportation charges claimed as deduction and had also furnished the relevant work orders and purchase orders. As those documents were already available to the department, there was no suppression of facts to justify extended limitation. The demand was therefore correctly held to be time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:31:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=371048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (12) TMI 538 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254194</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had filed price declarations disclosing transportation charges claimed as deduction and had also furnished the relevant work orders and purchase orders. As those documents were already available to the department, there was no suppression of facts to justify extended limitation. The demand was therefore correctly held to be time-barred.</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=254194</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>