Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract || Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability || SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training || Delhi High Court Quashed Cases over Allegations of Excess Lead Content in Maggi Noodles || Madras High Court: Advocates Cannot Hinder Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers Before a Court || Allahabad HC Awarded Rs. 4.75 Lakh Compensation Over Illegal Vehicle Confiscation in a Beef Case || Allahabad High Court: Strong Suspicion, Not Proof of Guilt, is Sufficient to Frame Charges || Delhi HC: Prior Sanction Not Required Where Cognizance Preceded 2018 PC Act Amendment || Bombay High Court: The Notion of a "Perfect Victim" in Rape Cases is a Myth || Allahabad High Court: Prior Agreement With Inquiry Report Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings

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 :