<?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>2008 (11) TMI 190 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34181</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for duty demand cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts with intent to evade duty is established. The order under challenge declined to impose penalty, which indicated that the conduct did not support deliberate suppression; on that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred. Because the limitation issue was ative, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 190 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34181</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for duty demand cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts with intent to evade duty is established. The order under challenge declined to impose penalty, which indicated that the conduct did not support deliberate suppression; on that basis, the demand was treated as time-barred. Because the limitation issue was ative, the Tribunal did not examine the merits of valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34181</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>