<?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>2018 (2) TMI 67 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354646</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where there was no evidence of suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The limitation objection had already been raised before the original adjudicating authority, and the dispute on whether the activity amounted to manufacture was treated as a debatable question of interpretation. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s view was held to be a plausible one, and the appellate authority sustained relief on limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2018 09:15:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507279" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 67 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354646</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where there was no evidence of suppression, misstatement, or intent to evade duty. The limitation objection had already been raised before the original adjudicating authority, and the dispute on whether the activity amounted to manufacture was treated as a debatable question of interpretation. On that basis, the assessee&#039;s view was held to be a plausible one, and the appellate authority sustained relief on limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354646</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>