<?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 (12) TMI 344 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762764</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant-company was not the manufacturer of goods but acted as a trader using job workers for manufacturing activities. Revenue&#039;s case was based solely on job worker statements without corroborative evidence. The tribunal found no manufacturing facility, machinery, raw materials, or adequate manpower at appellant&#039;s premises, with minimal electricity consumption indicating no manufacturing activity. The show cause notice failed to identify or quantify manufactured goods, making it legally defective. Extended period of limitation was improperly invoked as no suppression of facts was established. Following Supreme Court precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory case, repeated demands under extended limitation for same issues are unsustainable. Central excise duty demand, interest, and penalties on both company and partner were set aside, with appeals allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Dec 2024 08:14:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=781379" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (12) TMI 344 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762764</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant-company was not the manufacturer of goods but acted as a trader using job workers for manufacturing activities. Revenue&#039;s case was based solely on job worker statements without corroborative evidence. The tribunal found no manufacturing facility, machinery, raw materials, or adequate manpower at appellant&#039;s premises, with minimal electricity consumption indicating no manufacturing activity. The show cause notice failed to identify or quantify manufactured goods, making it legally defective. Extended period of limitation was improperly invoked as no suppression of facts was established. Following Supreme Court precedent in Nizam Sugar Factory case, repeated demands under extended limitation for same issues are unsustainable. Central excise duty demand, interest, and penalties on both company and partner were set aside, with appeals allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>