<?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 (6) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361552</link>
    <description>A later show-cause notice could not validly invoke the extended period of limitation on suppression where the same under-valuation had already been investigated by the department and settled earlier; the duty demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period. For computation of DTA entitlement under the relevant exemption notification and policy regime, the value of unconditionally exempt cotton waste was not required to be included, as the applicable policy treatment differed from the earlier precedent relied on by Revenue. Revenue&#039;s challenge on that issue failed, and the matter was remanded only for re-quantification within the normal period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jun 2018 07:41:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=522971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (6) TMI 379 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361552</link>
      <description>A later show-cause notice could not validly invoke the extended period of limitation on suppression where the same under-valuation had already been investigated by the department and settled earlier; the duty demand was therefore confined to the normal limitation period. For computation of DTA entitlement under the relevant exemption notification and policy regime, the value of unconditionally exempt cotton waste was not required to be included, as the applicable policy treatment differed from the earlier precedent relied on by Revenue. Revenue&#039;s challenge on that issue failed, and the matter was remanded only for re-quantification within the normal period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=361552</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>