<?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>Affixing MRP on Imported Electrical Appliances Qualifies as Manufacture Under Section 2(f)(iii), CENVAT Credit Allowed</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85998</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that affixing MRP on imported electrical home appliances constituted &#039;manufacture&#039; under Section 2(f)(iii), making it liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on previously paid import duty. The tribunal rejected the extended period of limitation due to lack of willful suppression, restricting duty demand to normal period (03/2015-10/2016). While mandatory interest was upheld, penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed unjustified. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for computing duty liability, interest, and CENVAT credit entitlement. The appeal was partially allowed through remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:04 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=801372" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Affixing MRP on Imported Electrical Appliances Qualifies as Manufacture Under Section 2(f)(iii), CENVAT Credit Allowed</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85998</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that affixing MRP on imported electrical home appliances constituted &#039;manufacture&#039; under Section 2(f)(iii), making it liable for excise duty. The appellant was entitled to CENVAT credit on previously paid import duty. The tribunal rejected the extended period of limitation due to lack of willful suppression, restricting duty demand to normal period (03/2015-10/2016). While mandatory interest was upheld, penalties under Rule 25 and Rule 26 were set aside. Seizure and confiscation of goods were deemed unjustified. Matter remanded to adjudicating authority for computing duty liability, interest, and CENVAT credit entitlement. The appeal was partially allowed through remand.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Feb 2025 08:24:04 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=85998</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>