<?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>2009 (2) TMI 169 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34707</link>
    <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the existence of multiple manufacturing units and the manner in which exemption was claimed. In the absence of any departmental investigation or evidence of deliberate suppression of material facts, mere non-disclosure of the ineligibility of one unit was insufficient to establish intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore held time-barred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73324" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 169 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34707</link>
      <description>The extended period of limitation could not be invoked where the assessee had disclosed the existence of multiple manufacturing units and the manner in which exemption was claimed. In the absence of any departmental investigation or evidence of deliberate suppression of material facts, mere non-disclosure of the ineligibility of one unit was insufficient to establish intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore held time-barred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>