<?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 (8) TMI 250 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51009</link>
    <description>Where the Department had prior knowledge of the relevant manufacturing activity and remained uncertain for a substantial period about the person liable, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The record showed earlier notices and departmental communications, and no suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty was established. On that basis, the duty demand was time-barred and the consequential penalties could not survive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:40:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89488" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 250 - CEGAT, KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51009</link>
      <description>Where the Department had prior knowledge of the relevant manufacturing activity and remained uncertain for a substantial period about the person liable, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The record showed earlier notices and departmental communications, and no suppression, fraud, wilful misstatement, or intent to evade duty was established. On that basis, the duty demand was time-barred and the consequential penalties could not survive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51009</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>