<?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 (10) TMI 617 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368651</link>
    <description>Where a show cause notice is based on scrutiny of regularly filed ER-1 returns, the Revenue cannot invoke the extended period of limitation unless suppression of facts or comparable concealment is shown. Since the clearances were already disclosed in the returns, there was no material to justify the extended limitation period. The central excise demand was therefore held to be time-barred and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:59:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537988" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 617 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368651</link>
      <description>Where a show cause notice is based on scrutiny of regularly filed ER-1 returns, the Revenue cannot invoke the extended period of limitation unless suppression of facts or comparable concealment is shown. Since the clearances were already disclosed in the returns, there was no material to justify the extended limitation period. The central excise demand was therefore held to be time-barred and was set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368651</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>