<?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>2003 (9) TMI 164 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52079</link>
    <description>Where the fortnightly duty-payment facility stood forfeited for two months after default, excise duty had to be paid for each consignment through the prescribed account current. Payment through the Cenvat Credit account during that forfeiture period was not a permitted mode and was treated as a continuing default. The resulting delay in crediting revenue justified levy of interest under the Central Excise Rules, and the objection to interest was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:24:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (9) TMI 164 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52079</link>
      <description>Where the fortnightly duty-payment facility stood forfeited for two months after default, excise duty had to be paid for each consignment through the prescribed account current. Payment through the Cenvat Credit account during that forfeiture period was not a permitted mode and was treated as a continuing default. The resulting delay in crediting revenue justified levy of interest under the Central Excise Rules, and the objection to interest was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52079</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>