<?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>2002 (11) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46621</link>
    <description>Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 requires duty to be credited to the Government account by the due date, and the explanation was treated as clarifying the mandatory time and mode of discharge. Payment by depositing cheques with the authorised bank before the due date did not amount to payment for this purpose because the statutory scheme made credit to the Government account the operative event. On that basis, default arose under Rule 8(4), and forfeiture of the fortnightly payment facility was upheld. The Court applied the settled distinction between mandatory and directory provisions and held that the special excise payment rule prevailed over the general principle relating to cheque payments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2015 18:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=85141" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46621</link>
      <description>Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2001 requires duty to be credited to the Government account by the due date, and the explanation was treated as clarifying the mandatory time and mode of discharge. Payment by depositing cheques with the authorised bank before the due date did not amount to payment for this purpose because the statutory scheme made credit to the Government account the operative event. On that basis, default arose under Rule 8(4), and forfeiture of the fortnightly payment facility was upheld. The Court applied the settled distinction between mandatory and directory provisions and held that the special excise payment rule prevailed over the general principle relating to cheque payments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46621</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>