https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57971 Disputed excise duty liability was treated as an accrued statutory liability under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the charge arose on manufacture and became chargeable on removal from the specified premises. Recovery stayed by court orders on furnishing bank guarantees did not extinguish the liability, and the distinction between demand notices and show-cause-cum-demand notices was immaterial. On mercantile accounting, an accrued statutory liability remained deductible despite pending challenge or postponed recovery, so the disallowance was not sustainable. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57971 Disputed excise duty liability was treated as an accrued statutory liability under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 because the charge arose on manufacture and became chargeable on removal from the specified premises. Recovery stayed by court orders on furnishing bank guarantees did not extinguish the liability, and the distinction between demand notices and show-cause-cum-demand notices was immaterial. On mercantile accounting, an accrued statutory liability remained deductible despite pending challenge or postponed recovery, so the disallowance was not sustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 19 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57971