SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation || Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case || Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights || Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims || Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation || Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity || Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper || Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration || Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal || Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status

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 :