Cenvat credit refund entitlement upheld where only a procedural lapse was found and no substantive suppression was proved.

Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was found inapplicable because the factual record showed no fraud, misstatement, collusion, suppression of facts or other substantive violation; the lapse was only procedural, so refund of credit remained permissible. The Tribunal's finding on entitlement to refund was treated as a factual determination, and in an appeal under Section 35G the Court would not reappreciate those findings absent a substantial question of law. The assessee therefore remained entitled to the refund and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts found, Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was attracted so as to deny refund of credit and whether the Tribunal's view on entitlement to refund could be interfered with in appeal under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The refund was held to be permissible and the only lapse was procedural. On the factual findings, there was no fraud, mis-statement, collusion, suppression of facts or other violation. The Tribunal's conclusion rested on findings of fact, and in an appeal under Section 35G, such findings could not be reappreciated in the absence of a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: Rule 16 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not attracted, and the assessee remained entitled to the refund; the appeal failed.

---