https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326210 CESTAT held that a refund claim was consequential to the earlier favourable Modvat credit decision, because the record showed the disputed credit was available and the Department failed to produce a reliable verification report. Rejection based on an alleged nil balance in one register was found inconsistent with the earlier adjudication record, so refund of the amount paid through PLA and re-credited in RG-23A Part II was allowed. On interest, entitlement arose only from the date Section 11BB became operative, namely three months after its introduction, and interest was payable from that permissible date. en-us Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326210 CESTAT held that a refund claim was consequential to the earlier favourable Modvat credit decision, because the record showed the disputed credit was available and the Department failed to produce a reliable verification report. Rejection based on an alleged nil balance in one register was found inconsistent with the earlier adjudication record, so refund of the amount paid through PLA and re-credited in RG-23A Part II was allowed. On interest, entitlement arose only from the date Section 11BB became operative, namely three months after its introduction, and interest was payable from that permissible date. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326210