<?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 (4) TMI 242 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768328</link>
    <description>Tribunal analyzed VAT retention under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, determining it was a state subsidy, not additional consideration for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the VAT retention should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and set aside the demand for excise duty, interest, and penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2025 08:23:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 242 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768328</link>
      <description>Tribunal analyzed VAT retention under the Assam Industries (Tax Remission) Scheme, 2005, determining it was a state subsidy, not additional consideration for excise duty calculation. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the VAT retention should not be included in the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and set aside the demand for excise duty, interest, and penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768328</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>