<?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 (8) TMI 1547 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461423</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal of a job-worker manufacturing lead alloy ingots from waste and scrap received from a principal manufacturer under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The revenue alleged suppression of production and short payment of excise duty based on Standard Input Output Norms (SION). The tribunal held that no demand can be made on mere allegations without substantial evidence. Since waste and scrap supplied by the principal manufacturer constituted inputs and were returned after processing as per purchase orders, no excise duty liability arose. The tribunal found no justification for duty demand or penalties, following the precedent in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Apr 2025 20:38:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=812155" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1547 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461423</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal of a job-worker manufacturing lead alloy ingots from waste and scrap received from a principal manufacturer under Rule 4(5)(a) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The revenue alleged suppression of production and short payment of excise duty based on Standard Input Output Norms (SION). The tribunal held that no demand can be made on mere allegations without substantial evidence. Since waste and scrap supplied by the principal manufacturer constituted inputs and were returned after processing as per purchase orders, no excise duty liability arose. The tribunal found no justification for duty demand or penalties, following the precedent in Wyeth Laboratories Ltd.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461423</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>