<?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>2019 (5) TMI 65 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379337</link>
    <description>A final order was rectified where the limitation period stated for demanding duty was wrongly recorded as two years instead of the applicable one year from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The error was found to be typographical and confined to the wording of paragraph 6. The correction clarified that demands raised beyond one year from the show cause notice are barred by limitation, aligning the order with the correct statutory time limit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2019 09:44:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=569109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 65 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379337</link>
      <description>A final order was rectified where the limitation period stated for demanding duty was wrongly recorded as two years instead of the applicable one year from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. The error was found to be typographical and confined to the wording of paragraph 6. The correction clarified that demands raised beyond one year from the show cause notice are barred by limitation, aligning the order with the correct statutory time limit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>