https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267182 Retrospectively barred AED (GSI) CENVAT credit, once wrongly used for payment of BED and SED, attracted recovery together with interest under the general recovery framework of Rule 12 read with Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The specified relevant date under Section 88(4) of the Finance Act, 2004 operated only for limitation on issuing notice and did not cut down liability to interest from the first day of the month following the wrong utilisation until actual payment. The later insertion of Section 88(5) by Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2005 applied only to credit still outstanding on its commencement, so liability could not be confined to that provision. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 11:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267182 Retrospectively barred AED (GSI) CENVAT credit, once wrongly used for payment of BED and SED, attracted recovery together with interest under the general recovery framework of Rule 12 read with Sections 11A and 11AB of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The specified relevant date under Section 88(4) of the Finance Act, 2004 operated only for limitation on issuing notice and did not cut down liability to interest from the first day of the month following the wrong utilisation until actual payment. The later insertion of Section 88(5) by Section 124 of the Finance Act, 2005 applied only to credit still outstanding on its commencement, so liability could not be confined to that provision. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267182