https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251779 The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was overturned by CESTAT, Bangalore, in favor of the Department, ruling that a show cause notice under Section 11A should have been issued for recovery of the excess refund. The absence of such notice led to the appeal being allowed, requiring the respondents to repay the excess amount. The decision was based on legal precedents, including CCE, Shillong v. Woodcraft Products Ltd., and deemed the Commissioner (Appeals) to have acted contrary to the law by requiring a show cause notice post the Tribunal's final decision. en-us Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 28 Sep 2014 08:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251779 The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was overturned by CESTAT, Bangalore, in favor of the Department, ruling that a show cause notice under Section 11A should have been issued for recovery of the excess refund. The absence of such notice led to the appeal being allowed, requiring the respondents to repay the excess amount. The decision was based on legal precedents, including CCE, Shillong v. Woodcraft Products Ltd., and deemed the Commissioner (Appeals) to have acted contrary to the law by requiring a show cause notice post the Tribunal's final decision. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251779