<?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 1128 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263211</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the dispute arose from a genuine doubt over dutiability and the description of the raw material, with no material showing suppression of turnover or misdeclaration. On that factual basis, the foundation for invoking extended limitation failed, and the consequential penalty and interest could not be revived. The finding was maintained in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 16:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395083" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1128 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263211</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation was held inapplicable because the dispute arose from a genuine doubt over dutiability and the description of the raw material, with no material showing suppression of turnover or misdeclaration. On that factual basis, the foundation for invoking extended limitation failed, and the consequential penalty and interest could not be revived. The finding was maintained in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>