<?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>2010 (10) TMI 994 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170286</link>
    <description>Monthly CENVAT credit disclosures in returns defeated invocation of the extended limitation period where the assessee had specifically reported credit on a cold room and the departmental audit had already examined the relevant period without objection. On those facts, the department could not later treat the same disclosed availment as suppression or concealment for recovery purposes. The demand for reversal of CENVAT credit was therefore time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2015 16:21:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=385647" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 994 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170286</link>
      <description>Monthly CENVAT credit disclosures in returns defeated invocation of the extended limitation period where the assessee had specifically reported credit on a cold room and the departmental audit had already examined the relevant period without objection. On those facts, the department could not later treat the same disclosed availment as suppression or concealment for recovery purposes. The demand for reversal of CENVAT credit was therefore time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170286</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>