<?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 (8) TMI 126 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383937</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the proceedings were barred by limitation as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits. Despite a dissenting opinion, the Third Member agreed that the demand was time-barred due to the Department&#039;s awareness of the facts through audits conducted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2019 07:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=582207" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 126 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383937</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the proceedings were barred by limitation as there was no suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential benefits. Despite a dissenting opinion, the Third Member agreed that the demand was time-barred due to the Department&#039;s awareness of the facts through audits conducted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>