<?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 (9) TMI 1069 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758825</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata set aside the adjudication order in a Cenvat credit reversal case involving extended limitation period. The tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority violated natural justice principles by directing fresh investigation after issuing show cause notices and receiving appellant&#039;s reply, instead of deciding based on existing allegations and responses. The authority improperly stepped into the investigating officer&#039;s role, vitiating the entire adjudication process. Additionally, the authority failed to provide specific bifurcation of items on which demand was confirmed, and acknowledged goods were used in manufacturing process. Appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Sep 2024 08:31:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=769373" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (9) TMI 1069 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758825</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata set aside the adjudication order in a Cenvat credit reversal case involving extended limitation period. The tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority violated natural justice principles by directing fresh investigation after issuing show cause notices and receiving appellant&#039;s reply, instead of deciding based on existing allegations and responses. The authority improperly stepped into the investigating officer&#039;s role, vitiating the entire adjudication process. Additionally, the authority failed to provide specific bifurcation of items on which demand was confirmed, and acknowledged goods were used in manufacturing process. Appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758825</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>