<?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>2014 (6) TMI 92 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248188</link>
    <description>Where an assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond the prescribed period, rule 8(3A) requires subsequent duty to be paid consignment-wise through PLA and bars utilisation of Cenvat credit during the continuing default. On the facts noted, the appellant had continued to use Cenvat credit despite the default, so the Tribunal&#039;s prima facie view supporting pre-deposit and its refusal to modify that order were held fair and proper. The Court also rejected reliance on a different miscellaneous order because the factual basis was materially different. No substantial question of law arose, and interference with the Tribunal&#039;s order was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Aug 2017 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 92 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248188</link>
      <description>Where an assessee defaults in payment of duty beyond the prescribed period, rule 8(3A) requires subsequent duty to be paid consignment-wise through PLA and bars utilisation of Cenvat credit during the continuing default. On the facts noted, the appellant had continued to use Cenvat credit despite the default, so the Tribunal&#039;s prima facie view supporting pre-deposit and its refusal to modify that order were held fair and proper. The Court also rejected reliance on a different miscellaneous order because the factual basis was materially different. No substantial question of law arose, and interference with the Tribunal&#039;s order was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248188</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>