<?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 (9) TMI 571 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332310</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period could not be invoked where the assessee&#039;s treatment of retained sales tax concession was supported by a CBEC circular dated 30.06.2000 and by earlier tribunal decisions taking the same view. On that basis, the assessee could not be treated as having suppressed facts or acted wrongly, and the later contrary view of the Supreme Court on valuation did not justify reopening the matter for the longer period. The consequential penalty also failed because the foundation for invoking extended limitation was absent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441102" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 571 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332310</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period could not be invoked where the assessee&#039;s treatment of retained sales tax concession was supported by a CBEC circular dated 30.06.2000 and by earlier tribunal decisions taking the same view. On that basis, the assessee could not be treated as having suppressed facts or acted wrongly, and the later contrary view of the Supreme Court on valuation did not justify reopening the matter for the longer period. The consequential penalty also failed because the foundation for invoking extended limitation was absent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332310</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>