<?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 759 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768845</link>
    <description>The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding disputed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal held that credit cannot be denied merely because the supplier&#039;s activity did not constitute manufacture, as the duty paid by the vendor cannot be questioned at the recipient&#039;s end. The Tribunal found that the appellant had fulfilled all requirements for taking Cenvat credit, including proper documentation and utilization for duty payment on finished goods. Additionally, the Commissioner(Appeals) erred by dismissing the appeal on grounds not raised in the original Show Cause Notice. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Apr 2025 08:35:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=814404" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 759 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768845</link>
      <description>The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal regarding disputed Cenvat credit. The Tribunal held that credit cannot be denied merely because the supplier&#039;s activity did not constitute manufacture, as the duty paid by the vendor cannot be questioned at the recipient&#039;s end. The Tribunal found that the appellant had fulfilled all requirements for taking Cenvat credit, including proper documentation and utilization for duty payment on finished goods. Additionally, the Commissioner(Appeals) erred by dismissing the appeal on grounds not raised in the original Show Cause Notice. The impugned order was set aside with consequential relief granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768845</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>