<?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 (8) TMI 998 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263081</link>
    <description>Show cause notices issued beyond the normal limitation period could not be saved by the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A absent wilful suppression, misrepresentation, or intent to evade duty. The Court noted that the relevant facts were already within the Department&#039;s knowledge, the exemption and input controversy had remained unsettled, and the prevailing judicial position was favourable to the assessees at the material time. A failure to obtain a licence, by itself, did not establish lack of bona fides or justify extension of limitation. The notices were therefore time-barred and the duty demands based on the extended period could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2015 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=394773" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 998 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263081</link>
      <description>Show cause notices issued beyond the normal limitation period could not be saved by the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A absent wilful suppression, misrepresentation, or intent to evade duty. The Court noted that the relevant facts were already within the Department&#039;s knowledge, the exemption and input controversy had remained unsettled, and the prevailing judicial position was favourable to the assessees at the material time. A failure to obtain a licence, by itself, did not establish lack of bona fides or justify extension of limitation. The notices were therefore time-barred and the duty demands based on the extended period could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263081</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>