Kar. HC: NOC from Landlord for Renewing Trade License of Leased Property Can’t be Insisted by BBMP  ||  Karnataka HC: Can’t Direct Husband With 75% Disability to Pay Maintenance to Wife  ||  SC: To Use Accused’s State. on Fact Discovery, Prose. Needs to Establish That No One Knew About it  ||  Bom HC: Pre-Condition of Complaint Can’t be Insisted by Hospitals to Provide Care to Pregnant Minor  ||  Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Govt. to Pay Rs. 738 Cr to MCD for Payment of Outstanding Dues  ||  Supreme Court: Jurisdiction of HC Under Article 226 Explained When Alternate Remedies Available  ||  Del HC: Abetm. of Suicide’s Trial Can’t Solely be Based on Mention of Person's Name in Suicide Note  ||  CESTAT: No Service Tax to be Levied on Flats Construc. Prior To 01.07.2010 Having Less Than 12 Flats  ||  Bombay High Court: Can’t Use Senior Citizenship Act as Machinery to Settle Property Disputes  ||  Delhi High Court: Not Compulsory to Use the Word ‘Seat’ in an Arbitration Clause    

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved