https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337068 Where full MODVAT/CENVAT credit was legally admissible, the substantive benefit could not be denied merely because the assessee first sought refund instead of taking a direct credit entry. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had relied on a technical objection that no duty had been paid and that refund was not maintainable without prior credit, but this did not defeat the underlying entitlement. Even if the claim was not treated as a refund claim under Section 11B, the proper course was to allow the remaining credit in the MODVAT account. The assessee was therefore entitled to take credit of the balance 25%. en-us Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337068 Where full MODVAT/CENVAT credit was legally admissible, the substantive benefit could not be denied merely because the assessee first sought refund instead of taking a direct credit entry. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had relied on a technical objection that no duty had been paid and that refund was not maintainable without prior credit, but this did not defeat the underlying entitlement. Even if the claim was not treated as a refund claim under Section 11B, the proper course was to allow the remaining credit in the MODVAT account. The assessee was therefore entitled to take credit of the balance 25%. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337068