Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
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.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.