<?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 1052 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752999</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal concerning the calculation of education cess and higher secondary education cess on excise duty for goods cleared by a 100% export-oriented unit into the Domestic Tariff Area. It upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order, citing previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions that resolved the issue, rendering it no longer res-integra. The Tribunal noted the absence of a stay from the Supreme Court and reiterated that once the measure of Customs duty equivalent to Central Excise duty was calculated, levying Education Cess separately was unnecessary. Thus, the impugned order was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2024 08:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754007" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (5) TMI 1052 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752999</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal concerning the calculation of education cess and higher secondary education cess on excise duty for goods cleared by a 100% export-oriented unit into the Domestic Tariff Area. It upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)&#039; order, citing previous Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions that resolved the issue, rendering it no longer res-integra. The Tribunal noted the absence of a stay from the Supreme Court and reiterated that once the measure of Customs duty equivalent to Central Excise duty was calculated, levying Education Cess separately was unnecessary. Thus, the impugned order was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=752999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>