Re-credit on consequential relief does not require a formal refund claim, and duty-demand provisions do not apply absent short payment.

Where credit already stood available and re-credit followed consequential relief granted in appeal, a formal refund claim was not required; a simple request by letter was sufficient. The text further states that Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 did not apply because the matter did not involve non-payment or short-payment of duty. On that basis, the order permitting re-credit was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a case relating to availment of credit and consequential relief, the assessee was required to file a formal refund claim before taking re-credit, and whether Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applied.

Analysis: The dispute related to credit already available and not to non-payment or short-payment of duty. Where the appellate authority grants consequential relief, a mere letter seeking re-credit is sufficient and a formal refund claim is not necessary. Since the matter did not concern demand of duty, Section 11A had no application.

Conclusion: The requirement of a formal refund claim was negatived and Section 11A was held inapplicable; the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order allowing re-credit on the basis of consequential relief was upheld and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters concerning re-credit of credit arising from consequential relief, a formal refund claim is not required, and provisions governing demand of duty do not apply where there is no issue of duty short-paid or not paid.

---