https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350935 The appellant's refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). However, upon further review, it was determined that the appellant had complied with the necessary procedures for shifting premises and seeking permission under Rule 10 of CCR. As a result, the appellant was granted recredit of the amount in question, totaling Rs. 3,10,633. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, resolving the matter in their favor. en-us Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 07:02:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350935 The appellant's refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Commissioner(Appeals). However, upon further review, it was determined that the appellant had complied with the necessary procedures for shifting premises and seeking permission under Rule 10 of CCR. As a result, the appellant was granted recredit of the amount in question, totaling Rs. 3,10,633. The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, resolving the matter in their favor. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350935