<?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 (11) TMI 2014 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469659</link>
    <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked for duty demands linked to royalty, stowing charges and similar additions to assessable value because the dispute was treated as one of interpretation and had been under litigation for a long time, with no wilful suppression attributable to the assessee. The extended-period demand was therefore set aside, and the penalties were also not sustained. The normal-period demand, if any, together with applicable interest, was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2026 22:22:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=908890" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 2014 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469659</link>
      <description>Extended limitation could not be invoked for duty demands linked to royalty, stowing charges and similar additions to assessable value because the dispute was treated as one of interpretation and had been under litigation for a long time, with no wilful suppression attributable to the assessee. The extended-period demand was therefore set aside, and the penalties were also not sustained. The normal-period demand, if any, together with applicable interest, was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469659</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>