<?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>2001 (4) TMI 906 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171164</link>
    <description>A demand cannot be sustained for the extended period where the show cause notice does not allege misstatement, fraud, suppression or comparable facts required to invoke that period. Such allegations cannot be implied into the notice. The limitation objection was also entertainable even though it had not been raised earlier, because a pure question of law may be urged at any stage. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and failed for the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (4) TMI 906 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171164</link>
      <description>A demand cannot be sustained for the extended period where the show cause notice does not allege misstatement, fraud, suppression or comparable facts required to invoke that period. Such allegations cannot be implied into the notice. The limitation objection was also entertainable even though it had not been raised earlier, because a pure question of law may be urged at any stage. The demand was therefore barred by limitation and failed for the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171164</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>