<?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 (5) TMI 1383 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343645</link>
    <description>Disclosure of re-credit in the CENVAT account to the department defeated any allegation of suppression, because the assessee had already informed the revenue by letter that it had taken re-credit after its rebate or re-credit request remained unattended. As the show-cause notice was issued nearly three years later, the demand was held to be barred by limitation and unsustainable on limitation alone, without examination of the merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 May 2017 06:04:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 1383 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343645</link>
      <description>Disclosure of re-credit in the CENVAT account to the department defeated any allegation of suppression, because the assessee had already informed the revenue by letter that it had taken re-credit after its rebate or re-credit request remained unattended. As the show-cause notice was issued nearly three years later, the demand was held to be barred by limitation and unsustainable on limitation alone, without examination of the merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>