<?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>2005 (2) TMI 413 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54410</link>
    <description>Payment of central excise duty through Cenvat credit was treated as valid compliance with Rule 173G(e) because clause (b) allowed duty to be discharged either by debit to the account current or by utilisation of Cenvat credit. Reading the provisions together, utilisation of credit was considered equivalent to debit to the account current, so the assessee had not breached the payment requirement. On that basis, penalty under Rule 173Q was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 09:45:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=92887" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 413 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54410</link>
      <description>Payment of central excise duty through Cenvat credit was treated as valid compliance with Rule 173G(e) because clause (b) allowed duty to be discharged either by debit to the account current or by utilisation of Cenvat credit. Reading the provisions together, utilisation of credit was considered equivalent to debit to the account current, so the assessee had not breached the payment requirement. On that basis, penalty under Rule 173Q was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>