https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244671 Retrospective amendment to Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as regularising the duty position for the relevant period, so the amount paid on clearance of drawn wire could ordinarily support CENVAT credit. That entitlement, however, depended on verifying whether the original wire manufacturers had already obtained refund of the duty earlier paid, because double benefit could not be allowed. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on that limited factual issue, with a fresh hearing before deciding credit eligibility. en-us Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Mar 2014 09:53:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244671 Retrospective amendment to Rule 16 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as regularising the duty position for the relevant period, so the amount paid on clearance of drawn wire could ordinarily support CENVAT credit. That entitlement, however, depended on verifying whether the original wire manufacturers had already obtained refund of the duty earlier paid, because double benefit could not be allowed. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication on that limited factual issue, with a fresh hearing before deciding credit eligibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 03 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244671