https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45964 An application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 attracted the payment mechanism in Rule 218(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Note 3 to Form E.A. 6, not Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The prescribed fee was to be paid through a crossed bank draft in favour of the Registrar of the High Court on a nationalised bank at the place where the High Court is situated. A demand draft complying with that requirement was valid, and insistence on payment by stamps was not sustainable. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:57:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45964 An application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 attracted the payment mechanism in Rule 218(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Note 3 to Form E.A. 6, not Section 69 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956. The prescribed fee was to be paid through a crossed bank draft in favour of the Registrar of the High Court on a nationalised bank at the place where the High Court is situated. A demand draft complying with that requirement was valid, and insistence on payment by stamps was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45964