<?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 (11) TMI 1877 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782409</link>
    <description>Excise duty was not payable on paper taken out of RG-1 within the factory for re-packing and then re-entered in RG-1 before final clearance, because the goods remained accounted for in statutory records and were cleared on payment of duty. The Board&#039;s circular on in-factory transfer for re-processing or re-conditioning supported that such internal handling does not by itself create a duty liability. The extended limitation period was also unavailable, as monthly intimation and return disclosures showed no suppression, clandestine removal, or intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation, with consequential relief following in law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2025 07:57:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=868059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 1877 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782409</link>
      <description>Excise duty was not payable on paper taken out of RG-1 within the factory for re-packing and then re-entered in RG-1 before final clearance, because the goods remained accounted for in statutory records and were cleared on payment of duty. The Board&#039;s circular on in-factory transfer for re-processing or re-conditioning supported that such internal handling does not by itself create a duty liability. The extended limitation period was also unavailable, as monthly intimation and return disclosures showed no suppression, clandestine removal, or intent to evade duty. The demand was therefore unsustainable on both merits and limitation, with consequential relief following in law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>