<?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>2024 (2) TMI 496 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449345</link>
    <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that special additional duty (SAD) cannot be levied on DTA clearance from 100% EOU when goods are cleared as stock transfer to their own unit. The department argued that since no VAT/Sales Tax was paid on the transfer, the appellant was exempted from VAT/Sales Tax, violating Notification 23/2003-CE conditions. The Tribunal held that stock transfers between EOU and their other units do not constitute sales, and the supplier is not treated as exempted from VAT/Service Tax payment. Therefore, no violation of notification conditions occurred. The demand for SAD was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2024 14:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=743147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 496 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449345</link>
      <description>CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled that special additional duty (SAD) cannot be levied on DTA clearance from 100% EOU when goods are cleared as stock transfer to their own unit. The department argued that since no VAT/Sales Tax was paid on the transfer, the appellant was exempted from VAT/Sales Tax, violating Notification 23/2003-CE conditions. The Tribunal held that stock transfers between EOU and their other units do not constitute sales, and the supplier is not treated as exempted from VAT/Service Tax payment. Therefore, no violation of notification conditions occurred. The demand for SAD was unsustainable, the impugned order was set aside, and appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>