https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=555 Refund of duty on electrical stampings and laminations could not be refused merely because the manufacturer had not first reversed Modvat credit. Once exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. was accepted, the duty paid on the goods became refundable, and any reversal or adjustment of credit was only a consequential matter. The excise authorities could pursue reversal against the manufacturer after refund was granted, but withholding refund on the basis of unreversed credit was not justified. Rule 57E supported adjustment of credit where a duty refund arose subsequently. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=555 Refund of duty on electrical stampings and laminations could not be refused merely because the manufacturer had not first reversed Modvat credit. Once exemption under Notification No. 64/86-C.E. was accepted, the duty paid on the goods became refundable, and any reversal or adjustment of credit was only a consequential matter. The excise authorities could pursue reversal against the manufacturer after refund was granted, but withholding refund on the basis of unreversed credit was not justified. Rule 57E supported adjustment of credit where a duty refund arose subsequently. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=555