Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The CESTAT dismissed the appellant's refund claim, holding that no refund was payable for differential duty and interest on clearances of intravenous fluids where the appellant had availed CENVAT credit and paid duty during the claim period. The Tribunal found the appellant had not challenged the assessed liability by appellate proceedings and had not produced any order setting aside the duty so paid. The Bench held that the law declared by the SC is binding under Article 141, and that decisions cited by the appellant were not binding precedents on the statutory regime under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; accordingly the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
