https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108187 The Tribunal found the appellant's re-crediting of the reversed amount without proper authorization to be unauthorized, leading to a jurisdictional dispute and a demand for reversal by the department. The Tribunal clarified that the reversal in RG 23A Part-II was accepted as compliance with Section 35F, while the re-credit without authorization was deemed an abuse of process. The department's action of demanding reversal was upheld, with the appeal lacking merit on the substantive issue, resulting in no penalty but setting aside the levy of interest due to the absence of legal authorization at the relevant time. en-us Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2012 14:19:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108187 The Tribunal found the appellant's re-crediting of the reversed amount without proper authorization to be unauthorized, leading to a jurisdictional dispute and a demand for reversal by the department. The Tribunal clarified that the reversal in RG 23A Part-II was accepted as compliance with Section 35F, while the re-credit without authorization was deemed an abuse of process. The department's action of demanding reversal was upheld, with the appeal lacking merit on the substantive issue, resulting in no penalty but setting aside the levy of interest due to the absence of legal authorization at the relevant time. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108187