<?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 289 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789220</link>
    <description>Lacquered polyester film at the intermediate stage was treated as marketable and excisable because the lacquering process had been brought within manufacture by amendment, and evidence of marketability displaced the plea against duty; captive consumption did not save the goods where the final products were exempt, so central excise duty was sustainable. Non-registration, failure to file returns, and non-payment after the legal change were treated as suppression with intent to evade, justifying the extended limitation period and penalties. In the connected Telstar matter, the duty issue was reopened only in part, while the directors&#039; penalties were upheld and the seizure-related aspect was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 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=895250" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 289 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789220</link>
      <description>Lacquered polyester film at the intermediate stage was treated as marketable and excisable because the lacquering process had been brought within manufacture by amendment, and evidence of marketability displaced the plea against duty; captive consumption did not save the goods where the final products were exempt, so central excise duty was sustainable. Non-registration, failure to file returns, and non-payment after the legal change were treated as suppression with intent to evade, justifying the extended limitation period and penalties. In the connected Telstar matter, the duty issue was reopened only in part, while the directors&#039; penalties were upheld and the seizure-related aspect was remanded for fresh adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>