<?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 (5) TMI 1126 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770854</link>
    <description>CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal where the appellant irregularly availed CENVAT credit on Customs Education Cess and Secondary &amp;amp; Higher Education Cess on imported inputs and capital goods. The irregular availment was discovered during a CERA audit in December 2013. Despite multiple departmental communications requesting evidence, the appellant failed to cooperate or provide supporting documents. The tribunal found suppression of facts with intent to avail irregular credit, as the appellant combined the credit availment without showing it separately in returns. The extended limitation period was validly invoked due to suppression, and penalties were upheld for intentional non-disclosure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2025 08:39:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1126 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770854</link>
      <description>CESTAT Kolkata dismissed the appeal where the appellant irregularly availed CENVAT credit on Customs Education Cess and Secondary &amp;amp; Higher Education Cess on imported inputs and capital goods. The irregular availment was discovered during a CERA audit in December 2013. Despite multiple departmental communications requesting evidence, the appellant failed to cooperate or provide supporting documents. The tribunal found suppression of facts with intent to avail irregular credit, as the appellant combined the credit availment without showing it separately in returns. The extended limitation period was validly invoked due to suppression, and penalties were upheld for intentional non-disclosure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>