<?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>2025 (3) TMI 264 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766879</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata partially allowed the appeal in a Central Excise valuation case. The tribunal held that royalty must be included in assessable value following a 9-member SC decision, but excluded Stowing Excise Duty and Assam Land Tax from valuation. The extended period of limitation was set aside as no suppression was established against the public sector appellant who had been regularly filing returns. The demand for royalty component was sustained while demands for other components were dismissed due to time-bar.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2025 07:35:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=804311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 264 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766879</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata partially allowed the appeal in a Central Excise valuation case. The tribunal held that royalty must be included in assessable value following a 9-member SC decision, but excluded Stowing Excise Duty and Assam Land Tax from valuation. The extended period of limitation was set aside as no suppression was established against the public sector appellant who had been regularly filing returns. The demand for royalty component was sustained while demands for other components were dismissed due to time-bar.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766879</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>