<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (10) TMI 145 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207218</link>
    <description>Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires an assessee in default beyond thirty days to pay duty for each consignment without using CENVAT credit until the arrears with interest are cleared, and its Explanation extends &quot;duty&quot; to amounts payable under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Settlement Commission&#039;s order was set aside because it considered only Rule 8(3A) and failed to account for the Explanation, amounting to non-consideration of relevant law. The writ objection under Article 226 was rejected, as judicial review remains available where a statutory authority ignores applicable legal provisions and causes prejudice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under the rule and its Explanation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Dec 2011 16:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180697" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 145 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207218</link>
      <description>Rule 8(3A) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 requires an assessee in default beyond thirty days to pay duty for each consignment without using CENVAT credit until the arrears with interest are cleared, and its Explanation extends &quot;duty&quot; to amounts payable under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. The Settlement Commission&#039;s order was set aside because it considered only Rule 8(3A) and failed to account for the Explanation, amounting to non-consideration of relevant law. The writ objection under Article 226 was rejected, as judicial review remains available where a statutory authority ignores applicable legal provisions and causes prejudice. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under the rule and its Explanation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>