https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352158 Reversed Modvat credit could not be restored or refunded under Rule 57F(13) where the exports were made under the advance licensing/VBAL scheme and not under bond, because no specific statutory provision authorised restoration and the tribunal would not create a remedy in the absence of legal authority. A separate refund claim was also held time-barred under Section 11B, as it was filed about eight years after reversal, and pendency of related customs proceedings did not suspend the limitation period for excise refund. The governing excise law was treated as a self-contained code for refund claims, so the rejection of refund was upheld. en-us Tue, 23 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352158 Reversed Modvat credit could not be restored or refunded under Rule 57F(13) where the exports were made under the advance licensing/VBAL scheme and not under bond, because no specific statutory provision authorised restoration and the tribunal would not create a remedy in the absence of legal authority. A separate refund claim was also held time-barred under Section 11B, as it was filed about eight years after reversal, and pendency of related customs proceedings did not suspend the limitation period for excise refund. The governing excise law was treated as a self-contained code for refund claims, so the rejection of refund was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352158