<?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>2023 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446434</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proceedings were revenue neutral since the duty paid by the Appellant was eligible as Cenvat Credit for the receiving unit. It was determined that there was no suppression of facts, as all necessary data was available to the Department, and the Show Cause Notice was issued late. The decision was based on previous rulings that in cases of revenue neutrality, suppression does not apply. The Appellant was deemed eligible for consequential relief according to the law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2023 07:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733819" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 118 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446434</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeals, finding that the proceedings were revenue neutral since the duty paid by the Appellant was eligible as Cenvat Credit for the receiving unit. It was determined that there was no suppression of facts, as all necessary data was available to the Department, and the Show Cause Notice was issued late. The decision was based on previous rulings that in cases of revenue neutrality, suppression does not apply. The Appellant was deemed eligible for consequential relief according to the law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446434</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>