<?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>1992 (4) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43882</link>
    <description>A mistaken interpretation of an exemption notification does not, by itself, amount to wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; where classification list, price list, invoices and returns were filed and suppression was not specifically alleged, the extended limitation period and penalty were not sustainable, and the normal limitation applied. Concessional excise duty on white printing paper supplied to DGS&amp;D and educational institutions remained available where the notification conditions and prescribed price ceiling were met; subsequent cutting or ruling did not defeat the concession, and the capped value governed the concessional base. The demand notices and the Collector&#039;s order were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 16:36:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82411" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 57 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43882</link>
      <description>A mistaken interpretation of an exemption notification does not, by itself, amount to wilful misstatement or suppression of facts; where classification list, price list, invoices and returns were filed and suppression was not specifically alleged, the extended limitation period and penalty were not sustainable, and the normal limitation applied. Concessional excise duty on white printing paper supplied to DGS&amp;D and educational institutions remained available where the notification conditions and prescribed price ceiling were met; subsequent cutting or ruling did not defeat the concession, and the capped value governed the concessional base. The demand notices and the Collector&#039;s order were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43882</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>