https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330511 The case involved a dispute over the availability of Cenvat Credit on duty paid for capital goods used in mines. The Commissioner denied the credit, leading the respondent to reverse the availed credit. Subsequently, a Supreme Court decision allowed the credit, contradicting the Commissioner's order. The respondent claimed a refund under protest, which was rejected by the original adjudicating authority. Despite not challenging the Commissioner's order, the respondent was granted the credit based on the Supreme Court's decision. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the Commissioner's order had finality as it was unchallenged. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of challenging orders to avoid dormant proceedings. en-us Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Jul 2016 12:45:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330511 The case involved a dispute over the availability of Cenvat Credit on duty paid for capital goods used in mines. The Commissioner denied the credit, leading the respondent to reverse the availed credit. Subsequently, a Supreme Court decision allowed the credit, contradicting the Commissioner's order. The respondent claimed a refund under protest, which was rejected by the original adjudicating authority. Despite not challenging the Commissioner's order, the respondent was granted the credit based on the Supreme Court's decision. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the Commissioner's order had finality as it was unchallenged. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue, emphasizing the importance of challenging orders to avoid dormant proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330511