<?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 (12) TMI 4 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351735</link>
    <description>Where an assessee disclosed the relevant undertakings and particulars to claim exemption, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent proved suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The record did not establish such suppression, and the prior precedent relied on had been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, reinforcing the limitation defence. The demand was therefore unsustainable on limitation, and the connected matter was disposed of as abated.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Dec 2017 07:36:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498241" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 4 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351735</link>
      <description>Where an assessee disclosed the relevant undertakings and particulars to claim exemption, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked absent proved suppression of material facts with intent to evade duty. The record did not establish such suppression, and the prior precedent relied on had been upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, reinforcing the limitation defence. The demand was therefore unsustainable on limitation, and the connected matter was disposed of as abated.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351735</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>