<?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>2001 (6) TMI 118 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50693</link>
    <description>The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked on the basis of suppression where the assessee did not separately state that knitted cotton fabrics fell under Chapter 60. The omission was not suppression with intent to evade duty because Chapter 60 classification was ascertainable from the tariff itself, and departmental officers could have verified it from the statutory scheme. The demand was therefore barred by limitation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:50:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 118 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50693</link>
      <description>The extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A(1) could not be invoked on the basis of suppression where the assessee did not separately state that knitted cotton fabrics fell under Chapter 60. The omission was not suppression with intent to evade duty because Chapter 60 classification was ascertainable from the tariff itself, and departmental officers could have verified it from the statutory scheme. The demand was therefore barred by limitation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50693</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>