https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204367 The petitioner firm availed Cenvat credit on inputs for job work, which was disputed by revenue officers. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the credit. The Tribunal challenge by the Revenue without a stay led to the petitioner seeking a refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Citing a Delhi HC precedent, the Court mandated the refund with interest, as the statutory period had lapsed and the amount was not refunded despite the appellate order. The Madras HC granted the writ petition for the refund within three months. en-us Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Aug 2011 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204367 The petitioner firm availed Cenvat credit on inputs for job work, which was disputed by revenue officers. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the credit. The Tribunal challenge by the Revenue without a stay led to the petitioner seeking a refund under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act. Citing a Delhi HC precedent, the Court mandated the refund with interest, as the statutory period had lapsed and the amount was not refunded despite the appellate order. The Madras HC granted the writ petition for the refund within three months. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204367