<?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 (2) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44792</link>
    <description>A show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was upheld where it was supported by detailed material suggesting clandestine removal over a long period and could attract the extended limitation period. The Court held that no preliminary adjudication on limitation was required before issuance of the notice, and the fact that part of the period was older did not invalidate the notice; limitation could still be raised in the proceedings. Objections to a supplementary notice and alleged procedural defects were found insufficient to nullify the proceedings. The High Court&#039;s quashing order was set aside and the excise proceedings were restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Jul 2014 12:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=83321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (2) TMI 104 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44792</link>
      <description>A show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act was upheld where it was supported by detailed material suggesting clandestine removal over a long period and could attract the extended limitation period. The Court held that no preliminary adjudication on limitation was required before issuance of the notice, and the fact that part of the period was older did not invalidate the notice; limitation could still be raised in the proceedings. Objections to a supplementary notice and alleged procedural defects were found insufficient to nullify the proceedings. The High Court&#039;s quashing order was set aside and the excise proceedings were restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>