<?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>Tribunal Rules Against Extended Limitation for Unpaid Duty; No Proof of Willful Suppression Found in Classification Dispute.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80722</link>
    <description>Invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for recovery of unpaid duty. The key points are: The department alleged suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to evade duty payment, invoking the 5-year limitation period instead of the normal 1-year period. However, the Commissioner did not provide adequate reasoning or consider the appellant&#039;s reply regarding the complex nature of classification. The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case, which held that to invoke extended limitation, suppression of facts must be deliberate to escape duty payment. Mere difference of opinion between department and assessee on duty liability cannot be construed as willfu.....</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:16:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Aug 2024 23:06:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Rules Against Extended Limitation for Unpaid Duty; No Proof of Willful Suppression Found in Classification Dispute.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80722</link>
      <description>Invoking the extended period of limitation u/s 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act for recovery of unpaid duty. The key points are: The department alleged suppression of facts by the appellant with intent to evade duty payment, invoking the 5-year limitation period instead of the normal 1-year period. However, the Commissioner did not provide adequate reasoning or consider the appellant&#039;s reply regarding the complex nature of classification. The Tribunal examined the Supreme Court&#039;s interpretation in Pushpam Pharmaceuticals case, which held that to invoke extended limitation, suppression of facts must be deliberate to escape duty payment. Mere difference of opinion between department and assessee on duty liability cannot be construed as willfu.....</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:16:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=80722</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>