<?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 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263740</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the order-in-original issued by the Revenue, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation for the period November 1992 to January 1996. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual findings and specific circumstances in determining the application of the extended period of limitation, highlighting that the Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a mixed question of fact and law. The Court dismissed the appeal, leaving open the question of whether a subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression could invoke a larger period of limitation for consideration in a future case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396308" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 408 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263740</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to set aside the order-in-original issued by the Revenue, ruling in favor of the assessee regarding the invocation of the extended period of limitation for the period November 1992 to January 1996. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual findings and specific circumstances in determining the application of the extended period of limitation, highlighting that the Tribunal&#039;s decision was based on a mixed question of fact and law. The Court dismissed the appeal, leaving open the question of whether a subsequent show cause notice alleging suppression could invoke a larger period of limitation for consideration in a future case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263740</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>