<?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>1994 (9) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43819</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for excise recovery requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; in the absence of such proof, the demand can be sustained only within the normal period. Liquid paraffin was held to satisfy the tariff characteristics of Tariff Item 8 as a mineral oil with the prescribed flash point and flame height, and it was not moved to the residuary Item 68 merely because it was processed from spindle oil. A further demand under Tariff Item 14E after packing and labelling failed because the assessee had not been put on notice of a two-stage levy, so that demand was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82348" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43819</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for excise recovery requires proof of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty; in the absence of such proof, the demand can be sustained only within the normal period. Liquid paraffin was held to satisfy the tariff characteristics of Tariff Item 8 as a mineral oil with the prescribed flash point and flame height, and it was not moved to the residuary Item 68 merely because it was processed from spindle oil. A further demand under Tariff Item 14E after packing and labelling failed because the assessee had not been put on notice of a two-stage levy, so that demand was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43819</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>