NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports || Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC || SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation || SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job || NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights || NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation || Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation || Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute' || Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices || Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear

Recovery of confirmed demands during pendency of stay application- (Ministry of Finance ) (04 Jul 2016)

MANU/EXCR/0024/2016

Excise

The Ministry of Finance brought changes to its 2013 notification on the recovery of confirmed demands while assessee’s stay application remains pending, in light of court decisions.

Courts have not been in favour of the Department collecting confirmed demands from the assessee during pendency of the stay, unless the demand has been conformed by CESTAT or the High Court.

The Ministry, erring on the side of caution, stated that even in the case of demands confirmed by court, recovery should be initiated only after 60 days from the order of the court.

Relevant : Recovery of confirmed demand MANU/EXCR/0002/2013 Amendments to the Appeal provisions MANU/EXCR/0008/2014

Tags : EXCISE CONFIRMED DEMAND STAY APPLICATION

Share :