<?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>2015 (6) TMI 865 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260940</link>
    <description>Disclosure of clearance details and the exemption claim in ER-1 returns prevented any finding of suppression of material facts. On those facts, the department was expected to verify the claim from the statutory records, so the precondition for invoking the extended period of limitation was absent. As suppression was not established, the statutory basis for penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also failed, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Jun 2015 06:02:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=388604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 865 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260940</link>
      <description>Disclosure of clearance details and the exemption claim in ER-1 returns prevented any finding of suppression of material facts. On those facts, the department was expected to verify the claim from the statutory records, so the precondition for invoking the extended period of limitation was absent. As suppression was not established, the statutory basis for penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 also failed, and the penalty was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>