<?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 (7) TMI 1956 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465772</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was whether cess was unpaid at the fabric/hessian cloth stage, justifying the demand. The Tribunal held that the levy stood discharged because the assessee proved that cess had already been paid at the first stage upon purchase of hessian bags, negating the Revenue&#039;s contention that no evidence of earlier-stage payment existed. Consequently, the impugned order sustaining the demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2026 21:13:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=876992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1956 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465772</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was whether cess was unpaid at the fabric/hessian cloth stage, justifying the demand. The Tribunal held that the levy stood discharged because the assessee proved that cess had already been paid at the first stage upon purchase of hessian bags, negating the Revenue&#039;s contention that no evidence of earlier-stage payment existed. Consequently, the impugned order sustaining the demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>