https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775568 The CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant was engaged in trading goods without manufacturing, as there was no evidence of branding with their logo or manufacturing facilities. The extended period of limitation invoked by Revenue was not justified. Since the appellant did not charge Excise duty on buyers and turnover remained below the threshold limit for the relevant years, the appellant was entitled to cum-duty benefit. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 17:22:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775568 The CESTAT Kolkata held that the appellant was engaged in trading goods without manufacturing, as there was no evidence of branding with their logo or manufacturing facilities. The extended period of limitation invoked by Revenue was not justified. Since the appellant did not charge Excise duty on buyers and turnover remained below the threshold limit for the relevant years, the appellant was entitled to cum-duty benefit. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775568