<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1449 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295096</link>
    <description>Demand for central excise duty, interest and penalty on alleged non-reversal of Cenvat credit relating to inputs contained in scrap generated at a job worker&#039;s end was found unsustainable. The assessee had discharged duty on the waste and scrap by valuing it with reference to similar scrap generated and sold from its own factory, and no contrary evidence displaced that valuation. The Tribunal also noted that an earlier order dropping the same demand for part of the same period had been accepted by the Revenue, so a contrary stand could not be taken. It further relied on settled post-1 April 2000 decisions that duty could not be fastened on the principal manufacturer for such scrap.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 May 2021 08:37:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1449 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295096</link>
      <description>Demand for central excise duty, interest and penalty on alleged non-reversal of Cenvat credit relating to inputs contained in scrap generated at a job worker&#039;s end was found unsustainable. The assessee had discharged duty on the waste and scrap by valuing it with reference to similar scrap generated and sold from its own factory, and no contrary evidence displaced that valuation. The Tribunal also noted that an earlier order dropping the same demand for part of the same period had been accepted by the Revenue, so a contrary stand could not be taken. It further relied on settled post-1 April 2000 decisions that duty could not be fastened on the principal manufacturer for such scrap.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295096</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>