<?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>2026 (1) TMI 262 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784506</link>
    <description>Goods cleared as incomplete iron-and-steel prefabricated items meant for assembly at the buyer&#039;s end were held not to constitute &quot;prefabricated buildings&quot; in CKD/SKD and, absent evidence that the ancillary items were design-specific to the appellant, were classifiable under CET 73.08 and not CET 94.06; consequently, the demand premised on CET 94.06 was unsustainable. As the goods were not properly classifiable under CET 94.06 and clubbing of turnovers of other units with the appellant&#039;s turnover was unsupported, the seizure/confiscation of inputs/semi-finished goods lying within the factory on presumptions of illicit clearance was held legally untenable, and confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. The extended period was held inapplicable for want of evidence of suppression or dummy-unit mutuality/flow-back, rendering part of the SCN time-barred; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:07:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 262 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784506</link>
      <description>Goods cleared as incomplete iron-and-steel prefabricated items meant for assembly at the buyer&#039;s end were held not to constitute &quot;prefabricated buildings&quot; in CKD/SKD and, absent evidence that the ancillary items were design-specific to the appellant, were classifiable under CET 73.08 and not CET 94.06; consequently, the demand premised on CET 94.06 was unsustainable. As the goods were not properly classifiable under CET 94.06 and clubbing of turnovers of other units with the appellant&#039;s turnover was unsupported, the seizure/confiscation of inputs/semi-finished goods lying within the factory on presumptions of illicit clearance was held legally untenable, and confiscation and redemption fine were set aside. The extended period was held inapplicable for want of evidence of suppression or dummy-unit mutuality/flow-back, rendering part of the SCN time-barred; the impugned order was set aside and the appeal allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>