https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124557 The appeal was rejected, directing the appellants to pursue the issue through a new refund claim. The Tribunal had quashed the demand later, making the appellant eligible for refund. However, a mistake was noted in allowing Rs. 59,866/- as Cenvat credit when the payment was made from the PLA account, not the Cenvat account. The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were deemed appropriate as there was no stay against the recovery at that time. en-us Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:08:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124557 The appeal was rejected, directing the appellants to pursue the issue through a new refund claim. The Tribunal had quashed the demand later, making the appellant eligible for refund. However, a mistake was noted in allowing Rs. 59,866/- as Cenvat credit when the payment was made from the PLA account, not the Cenvat account. The Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) orders were deemed appropriate as there was no stay against the recovery at that time. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124557