<?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 (4) TMI 294 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789225</link>
    <description>Central excise duty demand was found unsustainable where duty had already been paid on the clearances and the Revenue advanced inconsistent theories about the movement of goods. If no goods were sent to the named dealer, the duty demand could not rest on that premise; if the goods were diverted elsewhere, duty had already been discharged on clearance. Because the demand lacked a consistent factual and legal basis, confirmation of the duty demand could not be sustained. The respondent therefore succeeded on the issue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2026 08:51:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=895245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 294 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789225</link>
      <description>Central excise duty demand was found unsustainable where duty had already been paid on the clearances and the Revenue advanced inconsistent theories about the movement of goods. If no goods were sent to the named dealer, the duty demand could not rest on that premise; if the goods were diverted elsewhere, duty had already been discharged on clearance. Because the demand lacked a consistent factual and legal basis, confirmation of the duty demand could not be sustained. The respondent therefore succeeded on the issue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789225</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>