<?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>1991 (12) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43180</link>
    <description>A classification approved in appeal binds subordinate excise authorities unless set aside through the statutory appellate or revisional process, so a fresh demand under section 11A to reopen that settled classification is without jurisdiction. The extended limitation period under section 11A applies only where non-levy or short-levy is shown to result from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty; a bona fide classification dispute and departmental knowledge of the manufacturing process do not satisfy that test. Binding departmental circulars and trade notices confirming that specified finishing processes do not alter the essential character of castings further negate any allegation of suppression.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 15:57:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (12) TMI 63 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43180</link>
      <description>A classification approved in appeal binds subordinate excise authorities unless set aside through the statutory appellate or revisional process, so a fresh demand under section 11A to reopen that settled classification is without jurisdiction. The extended limitation period under section 11A applies only where non-levy or short-levy is shown to result from fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or intent to evade duty; a bona fide classification dispute and departmental knowledge of the manufacturing process do not satisfy that test. Binding departmental circulars and trade notices confirming that specified finishing processes do not alter the essential character of castings further negate any allegation of suppression.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43180</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>