Delhi HC: MYAS Not Bound to ‘Rubber-Stamp’ International Federation Choices || AP HC: Fulfilling Rehabilitation Promises to Displaced is State’s Constitutional Obligation || SC: Career Progression to Higher Echelons of Judiciary is Neither a Matter of Right Nor Entitlement || Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act 2022 Struck Down as Unconstitutional || Madras HC: Repeated Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act are Unworkable Without Reversing Merits || Delhi High Court: Unproven Immoral Conduct of a Parent Cannot Influence Child Custody Decisions || Delhi High Court: Counsel Cannot Treat Passovers or Adjournments as an Automatic Right || Delhi HC: Landlord’s Rent Control Act Rights Cannot be Waived by Contract With Tenant || Bom HC: Arbitrator Who Halts Proceedings over Unpaid Revised Fees Effectively Withdraws From Office || SC Holds That if Some Offences Are Quashed On Compromise, The FIR Cannot Continue For Others

Jayaswal Neco Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur - (Supreme Court) (06 Aug 2015)

Rule 173G payment from CENVAT Account

MANU/SC/0839/2015

Excise

The Supreme Court held in favour of an Assessee claiming payment from its CENVAT Account could be counted towards demand under Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Court, affirming the position taken in a previous High Court judgment, added that since then the Central Excise Rules, 2002 themselves had been amended discontinuing this provision for payment. The Assessee's dispute had originated prior to the amendment.

Relevant : Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai Ichi Karkaria Limited MANU/SC/0467/1999 Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India MANU/SC/0051/1999

Tags : EXCISE CENVAT DUTY PAYMENT

Share :