Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : M/s.Manaksia Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia (CESTAT Kolkata)
Appeal Number : Appeal No. E/75914/16
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/03/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
There is no bar in amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that the deposit has to be made in cash only and not from CENVAT Credit Account. CESTAT held that view taken by the First Appellate Authority, that deposit under Section 35F (i)  cannot be made from CENVAT Credit Account, is not the correct appreciation of law so long as the CENVAT Credit is  permissible for utilisation as per Rule 3(4) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004.

RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed by the appellant against Order-in-Appeal No. 09/HAL/2016 dated 15.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner(Appeal-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.

2. Vide the impugned Order, inter alia, the first Appellate Authority has disposed of all the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground that mandatory deposit of duty required to be made under Section 35F (i) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has been paid from the CENVAT Account maintained by the appellants.

3. Shri S.P.Siddhanta, Consultant appeared for the appellant. It is his case that there is no bar in amended Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, that the deposit has to be made in cash only and not from CENVAT Credit Account.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031