P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court || Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long || Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo || Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision || Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act || Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself || Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession || SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings || SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order || NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions

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 :