<?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 (10) TMI 370 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349215</link>
    <description>Import declarations disclosed the nature of the goods, the Bills of Entry contained the relevant particulars, and departmental officers had repeatedly examined the exemption claim, raised queries, inspected the goods, and considered the technical write-up. On those facts, no material suppression of facts could be attributed to the importer, so the extended period of limitation was not available and the show cause notice was time-barred. The demand therefore failed on limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2017 11:26:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 370 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349215</link>
      <description>Import declarations disclosed the nature of the goods, the Bills of Entry contained the relevant particulars, and departmental officers had repeatedly examined the exemption claim, raised queries, inspected the goods, and considered the technical write-up. On those facts, no material suppression of facts could be attributed to the importer, so the extended period of limitation was not available and the show cause notice was time-barred. The demand therefore failed on limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>