Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC || Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts || Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines || Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act || NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties || Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT || Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage || SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance || SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession || Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows

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 :