<?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 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752312</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous records and statements were relied on to show that only part of the turnover represented manufactured clearances, while the balance was trading or bought-out goods. On that basis, SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was available and the duty demand did not survive. The refund claim for the amount deposited during investigation was filed within one month of the order dropping the proceedings, so it was not barred by limitation and remained allowable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 May 2024 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=752371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 365 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752312</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous records and statements were relied on to show that only part of the turnover represented manufactured clearances, while the balance was trading or bought-out goods. On that basis, SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was available and the duty demand did not survive. The refund claim for the amount deposited during investigation was filed within one month of the order dropping the proceedings, so it was not barred by limitation and remained allowable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752312</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>