<?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>Appellant&#039;s Fact Suppression Allegations Unfounded; Discrepancy Due to Wrong Excise Code, Not Intentional Concealment.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43007</link>
    <description>The allegations of the Department about suppression of facts on part of the appellant with the mention that the mistake came to the notice only at the time of Audit is not sustainable specially in a case where the duty has been paid, however, to a wrong Excise Code.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:24 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellant&#039;s Fact Suppression Allegations Unfounded; Discrepancy Due to Wrong Excise Code, Not Intentional Concealment.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43007</link>
      <description>The allegations of the Department about suppression of facts on part of the appellant with the mention that the mistake came to the notice only at the time of Audit is not sustainable specially in a case where the duty has been paid, however, to a wrong Excise Code.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:13:24 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=43007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>