<?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 (6) TMI 503 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344232</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act was not available where the facts relied on in the show cause notice were already disclosed in the ER-1 returns and the notice did not clearly segregate the consignments forming the basis of the demand. On those facts, the ingredients required to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) were not established, so the notice was held time-barred and unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2017 08:57:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=471646" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 503 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344232</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation under the Central Excise Act was not available where the facts relied on in the show cause notice were already disclosed in the ER-1 returns and the notice did not clearly segregate the consignments forming the basis of the demand. On those facts, the ingredients required to invoke the proviso to Section 11A(1) were not established, so the notice was held time-barred and unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344232</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>