<?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>2019 (10) TMI 1289 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289493</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the confirmation of central excise duty demand for the period in question. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA), claimed exemption under a specific notification. Expert analysis supported the appellant&#039;s position that their product qualified as &#039;Pure Terephthalic Acid&#039;. The matter was remanded for reevaluation by the Commissioner considering the expert opinion on product purity. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of expert opinions in interpreting tax laws and set aside the penalty, finding no suppression and ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant within three months.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2020 14:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618950" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (10) TMI 1289 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289493</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the confirmation of central excise duty demand for the period in question. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA), claimed exemption under a specific notification. Expert analysis supported the appellant&#039;s position that their product qualified as &#039;Pure Terephthalic Acid&#039;. The matter was remanded for reevaluation by the Commissioner considering the expert opinion on product purity. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of expert opinions in interpreting tax laws and set aside the penalty, finding no suppression and ensuring a fair hearing for the appellant within three months.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>