<?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>2021 (11) TMI 174 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414393</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked as there was no deliberate suppression of facts or intent to evade duty by the appellant. Consequently, the Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case beyond the limitation issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2021 06:59:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660391" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (11) TMI 174 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414393</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the extended period of limitation under section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act could not be invoked as there was no deliberate suppression of facts or intent to evade duty by the appellant. Consequently, the Commissioner&#039;s order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case beyond the limitation issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414393</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>