<?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>2017 (6) TMI 1196 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200234</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the mandatory deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be paid from the CENVAT Credit Account maintained by the appellants. The Tribunal found that the provision did not specify that the deposit must be made only in cash and considered payments from the CENVAT Credit Account as valid. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing both parties to present evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2018 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (6) TMI 1196 - CESTAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200234</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the mandatory deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, could be paid from the CENVAT Credit Account maintained by the appellants. The Tribunal found that the provision did not specify that the deposit must be made only in cash and considered payments from the CENVAT Credit Account as valid. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, allowing both parties to present evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>