<?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 (6) TMI 2131 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469278</link>
    <description>The note states that medicinal products manufactured in accordance with the pharmacopoeia, where alcohol is required in the formulation, are excluded from central excise duty under Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 even if the label does not mention alcohol content. It further explains that oral capsules falling within the small scale industry framework remained eligible for exemption because turnover, after the Section 4A abatement, stayed below the threshold and export turnover was not to be included in the limit. On limitation, it records that a bona fide classification dispute and absence of wilful suppression prevented invocation of the extended period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2026 14:56:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 2131 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469278</link>
      <description>The note states that medicinal products manufactured in accordance with the pharmacopoeia, where alcohol is required in the formulation, are excluded from central excise duty under Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 even if the label does not mention alcohol content. It further explains that oral capsules falling within the small scale industry framework remained eligible for exemption because turnover, after the Section 4A abatement, stayed below the threshold and export turnover was not to be included in the limit. On limitation, it records that a bona fide classification dispute and absence of wilful suppression prevented invocation of the extended period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>