PIL Seeking ‘Authoritative Interpretation’ of Section 66 PMLA Refused by Delhi High Court || All. HC: Can’t Declare Transaction Benami on Contractor’s Statement Without Relevant Material || Del. HC: Denying ITC to Taxpayers One of the Outcomes of GST Registration Cancell. with Retrospect || Cal HC: Penalty Amount on Higher Value than Invoice Value Can’t be Computed by GST Dep. w/o Evidence || All. HC: Candidates with Criminal Background Will Pose Severe Threat to Democracy if Elected || All. HC: It’s an Obligation of Bank Officials to Fully Co-operate in Criminal Investigations || SC: Prima Facie Case Made Out from Allegations in Complaint Sufficient to Summon Accused || Supreme Court Explains: Debt Becoming Financial & Operational Debt || P&H HC: Model Code of Conduct Can’t Stand in Way of Execution of Judicial Order || Chh. HC: Can’t Build Matrimonial Home With Bricks & Stones, Love & Respect Between Spouses Required

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 :