<?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>2016 (5) TMI 1045 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328064</link>
    <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the purchase orders, contracts and pricing terms to the Department. The contracts showed composite prices inclusive of freight, insurance, packing and other levies, so the basis of valuation and the relevant contractual terms were already within departmental knowledge. On those facts, suppression of material facts was not established, and the demand could not survive on the extended period of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 May 2016 08:38:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=429477" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 1045 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328064</link>
      <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the purchase orders, contracts and pricing terms to the Department. The contracts showed composite prices inclusive of freight, insurance, packing and other levies, so the basis of valuation and the relevant contractual terms were already within departmental knowledge. On those facts, suppression of material facts was not established, and the demand could not survive on the extended period of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328064</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>