https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346010 A reversal of cenvat credit made under protest remained a deposit because the department never appropriated it under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, refund was permissible, and the earlier reversal did not lose its deposit character. The analysis also noted that cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in mines by a cement manufacturer was recognised as admissible under binding precedent, while the contrary decision relied on was distinguishable because appropriation had already taken place there. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the amount reversed under protest. en-us Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Sep 2017 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346010 A reversal of cenvat credit made under protest remained a deposit because the department never appropriated it under Rule 233B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, refund was permissible, and the earlier reversal did not lose its deposit character. The analysis also noted that cenvat credit on inputs and capital goods used in mines by a cement manufacturer was recognised as admissible under binding precedent, while the contrary decision relied on was distinguishable because appropriation had already taken place there. The assessee was therefore entitled to refund of the amount reversed under protest. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346010