https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246293 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing relief to the appellant based on the unique circumstances of the case. The appellant's actions of debiting and subsequently reversing Cenvat credit were deemed as rectification entries, not unjust enrichment, as they were for proposed clearances that did not materialize. The Tribunal distinguished the case from BDH Industries, stating that the reversal did not require a refund claim as it was not related to actual removal of goods, aligning with the decision in Ultra Tech Cement Limited. en-us Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Apr 2014 15:56:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246293 The Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing relief to the appellant based on the unique circumstances of the case. The appellant's actions of debiting and subsequently reversing Cenvat credit were deemed as rectification entries, not unjust enrichment, as they were for proposed clearances that did not materialize. The Tribunal distinguished the case from BDH Industries, stating that the reversal did not require a refund claim as it was not related to actual removal of goods, aligning with the decision in Ultra Tech Cement Limited. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 15 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246293