https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75498 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. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75498 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=75498