<?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>1995 (2) TMI 68 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43990</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition regarding the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises &amp;amp; Salt Act, 1944 due to condonation of delay. The High Court held that there was no wilful suppression of facts by the assessee, rendering the proviso inapplicable. Consequently, the High Court quashed the show cause notice, clarifying that the challenge was limited to the proviso&#039;s applicability and not the notice issued within 6 months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:57:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (2) TMI 68 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43990</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition regarding the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises &amp;amp; Salt Act, 1944 due to condonation of delay. The High Court held that there was no wilful suppression of facts by the assessee, rendering the proviso inapplicable. Consequently, the High Court quashed the show cause notice, clarifying that the challenge was limited to the proviso&#039;s applicability and not the notice issued within 6 months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43990</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>