<?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>2006 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3624</link>
    <description>A wrong declaration was held not to constitute deliberate suppression where the Tribunal found, on facts, that the error arose from a mutual mistake on both sides. That factual finding was treated as unimpeachable, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the show cause notice was time-barred. Once limitation failed, the alternative issues concerning entitlement to credit and reliance on another decision did not require examination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2018 11:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42974" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3624</link>
      <description>A wrong declaration was held not to constitute deliberate suppression where the Tribunal found, on facts, that the error arose from a mutual mistake on both sides. That factual finding was treated as unimpeachable, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked and the show cause notice was time-barred. Once limitation failed, the alternative issues concerning entitlement to credit and reliance on another decision did not require examination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>