https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235114 The applicants' rebate claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was initially rejected, citing discrepancies in duty payment. The dispute revolved around the applicability of different notifications regarding duty payment on exported goods. Despite arguments based on case law and circulars, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the applicants' claims. However, the Government ultimately allowed the applicants to re-credit the disputed amount in their Cenvat credit account, following precedents indicating that duty paid without legal basis should be refunded. The revision application was successful. en-us Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235114 The applicants' rebate claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, was initially rejected, citing discrepancies in duty payment. The dispute revolved around the applicability of different notifications regarding duty payment on exported goods. Despite arguments based on case law and circulars, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the applicants' claims. However, the Government ultimately allowed the applicants to re-credit the disputed amount in their Cenvat credit account, following precedents indicating that duty paid without legal basis should be refunded. The revision application was successful. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235114