<?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 (5) TMI 548 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359984</link>
    <description>Longer limitation period is unavailable where a duty demand arises from classification and duty-liability interpretation rather than deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. The note states that an earlier departmental view does not bind the Bench in de novo consideration, and that the dispute&#039;s shifting legal position supports treating the demand as time-barred. On that basis, the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 May 2018 08:03:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519511" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (5) TMI 548 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359984</link>
      <description>Longer limitation period is unavailable where a duty demand arises from classification and duty-liability interpretation rather than deliberate suppression or intent to evade duty. The note states that an earlier departmental view does not bind the Bench in de novo consideration, and that the dispute&#039;s shifting legal position supports treating the demand as time-barred. On that basis, the demand could not be sustained by invoking the extended period of limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359984</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>