<?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>2017 (1) TMI 601 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337521</link>
    <description>Prior disclosures of the job-work activity, removal of inputs and the nature of the process defeated any allegation of suppression of facts, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Because the department already had the relevant information, the show-cause notice issued long after the transactions was beyond the prescribed period and the demand was unsustainable on limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 07:22:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 601 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337521</link>
      <description>Prior disclosures of the job-work activity, removal of inputs and the nature of the process defeated any allegation of suppression of facts, so the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Because the department already had the relevant information, the show-cause notice issued long after the transactions was beyond the prescribed period and the demand was unsustainable on limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337521</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>