<?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 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347856</link>
    <description>Where the department was already aware of the material facts from an earlier investigation and notice against the supplier, a later show cause notice to deny Cenvat credit and demand duty could not validly invoke the extended period of limitation. The notice was issued beyond time on facts already known to the department, so the extended limitation was not sustainable. The show cause notice was therefore barred by limitation and not maintainable under central excise law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 07:53:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489066" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 613 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347856</link>
      <description>Where the department was already aware of the material facts from an earlier investigation and notice against the supplier, a later show cause notice to deny Cenvat credit and demand duty could not validly invoke the extended period of limitation. The notice was issued beyond time on facts already known to the department, so the extended limitation was not sustainable. The show cause notice was therefore barred by limitation and not maintainable under central excise law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>