<?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 201 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354780</link>
    <description>A second show cause notice on the same facts and for the same period could not be sustained by alleging suppression of facts where an earlier notice had already initiated the dispute and the department was aware of the relevant facts. Issuance by the correct jurisdictional authority did not create a fresh basis to invoke the extended period of limitation. The notice was therefore barred by limitation, and the confirmed demand and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2018 07:06:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=507545" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 201 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354780</link>
      <description>A second show cause notice on the same facts and for the same period could not be sustained by alleging suppression of facts where an earlier notice had already initiated the dispute and the department was aware of the relevant facts. Issuance by the correct jurisdictional authority did not create a fresh basis to invoke the extended period of limitation. The notice was therefore barred by limitation, and the confirmed demand and penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>