<?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 263 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766878</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for Central Excise duty on a performance incentive received by the appellant. The tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation was inapplicable, as the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, requires evidence of fraud or willful misstatement, which was absent. The finding on the penalty attained finality, leading to the dismissal of the duty demand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 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=804312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (3) TMI 263 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766878</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for Central Excise duty on a performance incentive received by the appellant. The tribunal determined that the extended period of limitation was inapplicable, as the penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, requires evidence of fraud or willful misstatement, which was absent. The finding on the penalty attained finality, leading to the dismissal of the duty demand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=766878</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>