<?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>1996 (10) TMI 109 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44470</link>
    <description>Extended limitation for an excise duty demand cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts is shown with mala fide intention. On the stated facts, the record did not establish such suppression in relation to bath powder manufacture, so the ordinary six-month limitation period applied. The duty demand was therefore confined to the period immediately preceding the notice, and the extended period was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 13:45:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82999" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (10) TMI 109 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44470</link>
      <description>Extended limitation for an excise duty demand cannot be invoked unless suppression of facts is shown with mala fide intention. On the stated facts, the record did not establish such suppression in relation to bath powder manufacture, so the ordinary six-month limitation period applied. The duty demand was therefore confined to the period immediately preceding the notice, and the extended period was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>