<?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 (11) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44645</link>
    <description>A show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period can sustain duty demand and penalty only if it expressly alleges the specific grounds for invoking the extended period, such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. A notice that merely relies on the larger period without particularising those ingredients does not inform the person proceeded against of the exact case to meet and fails the requirement of natural justice. In the absence of such particulars, invocation of the extended period is not sustainable, and the demand and penalty cannot be upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2025 17:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83174" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 84 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44645</link>
      <description>A show cause notice issued beyond the normal limitation period can sustain duty demand and penalty only if it expressly alleges the specific grounds for invoking the extended period, such as fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, or contravention with intent to evade duty. A notice that merely relies on the larger period without particularising those ingredients does not inform the person proceeded against of the exact case to meet and fails the requirement of natural justice. In the absence of such particulars, invocation of the extended period is not sustainable, and the demand and penalty cannot be upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>