<?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>2016 (6) TMI 924 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329215</link>
    <description>An excise duty payment made through electronic transfer under the wrong service tax code, due to a clerical error, could not be refused adjustment against the taxpayer&#039;s admitted central excise liability for the same period. The liability for March 2014 was undisputed and the payment was made on the due date; only the tax code was incorrectly entered, causing the amount to be credited to the wrong head. As no service tax liability existed for that amount, internal instructions or closure of accounts could not justify retaining the payment under an inapplicable head while requiring fresh payment under the correct excise head. The taxpayer was therefore entitled to adjustment, and the refusal was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:41:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432817" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (6) TMI 924 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329215</link>
      <description>An excise duty payment made through electronic transfer under the wrong service tax code, due to a clerical error, could not be refused adjustment against the taxpayer&#039;s admitted central excise liability for the same period. The liability for March 2014 was undisputed and the payment was made on the due date; only the tax code was incorrectly entered, causing the amount to be credited to the wrong head. As no service tax liability existed for that amount, internal instructions or closure of accounts could not justify retaining the payment under an inapplicable head while requiring fresh payment under the correct excise head. The taxpayer was therefore entitled to adjustment, and the refusal was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>