<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192459</link>
    <description>Where an assessee had filed a classification declaration and the department had accepted the declared classification during the relevant period, suppression could not be alleged on those facts. Because the show cause notice relied on the extended period of limitation, the entire duty demand depended on establishing suppression; that basis was not made out. The extended period was therefore not invokable, and the duty demand, interest, and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2017 10:49:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=470761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1392 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192459</link>
      <description>Where an assessee had filed a classification declaration and the department had accepted the declared classification during the relevant period, suppression could not be alleged on those facts. Because the show cause notice relied on the extended period of limitation, the entire duty demand depended on establishing suppression; that basis was not made out. The extended period was therefore not invokable, and the duty demand, interest, and penalty were held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>