<?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>2005 (12) TMI 194 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54931</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the demands for duty recovery were time-barred as there was no suppression of facts and the show cause notice was issued after a significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need to read Section 11D in conjunction with Section 11A, referencing relevant case law. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed based on established legal principles, highlighting the significance of timely action by authorities and adherence to statutory timelines in excise matters.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:53:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93407" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 194 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54931</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the demands for duty recovery were time-barred as there was no suppression of facts and the show cause notice was issued after a significant delay. The Tribunal emphasized the need to read Section 11D in conjunction with Section 11A, referencing relevant case law. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed based on established legal principles, highlighting the significance of timely action by authorities and adherence to statutory timelines in excise matters.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>