1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Tribunal rejects Modvat account use for duty, grants deposit extension, emphasizes compliance</h1> The tribunal found that debiting duty from the Modvat account did not comply with the stay order, rejecting the appellant's argument that it should be ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Non-compliance of stay order Issues: Compliance with tribunal's order regarding duty payment through Modvat credit account during forfeiture period.In this case, the appellant was directed to deposit Rs. 11 lakhs towards duty within a specified period. The appellant initially deposited Rs. 1 lakh in cash and debited Rs. 10 lakhs from their Modvat account. However, it was pointed out that the dispute was regarding duty payment during forfeiture through PLA without using deemed credit. The tribunal found that debiting the duty from the Modvat account did not comply with the stay order. The appellant's advocate argued that the Modvat credit account debit should be considered a valid deposit, but the tribunal disagreed, citing a previous decision. The tribunal extended the deadline for the appellant to deposit the remaining Rs. 10 lakhs by 15 days, emphasizing the need for compliance with the original order. The matter was scheduled for further compliance verification on a later date.The main issue in this judgment was the appellant's compliance with the tribunal's order to deposit duty using the Modvat credit account during a specific period. The tribunal emphasized that the dispute centered around duty payment during forfeiture through PLA without utilizing deemed credit. The appellant's attempt to consider the Modvat credit account debit as a valid deposit was rejected by the tribunal, which referenced a previous decision to support its stance. The tribunal granted an extension of 15 days for the appellant to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 10 lakhs, highlighting the importance of adhering to the original order. Compliance verification was scheduled for a later date to ensure the appellant's adherence to the tribunal's directive.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
