https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356748 CENVAT credit that had lapsed for non-compliance with Rule 57F(17)(b) could not be revived suo motu after a long delay, even by relying on later case law; the attempted belated availment was therefore impermissible and the disallowance was sustained. Interest was also held payable on wrongly availed credit under Rule 14 where the credit was later utilised in part, because interest liability arises from the date of wrong availment rather than only from actual debit or full utilisation. The commentary thus states that lapsed credit cannot be unilaterally restored after acceptance of the lapse, and wrong credit attracts interest from the date it is taken. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 05:44:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356748 CENVAT credit that had lapsed for non-compliance with Rule 57F(17)(b) could not be revived suo motu after a long delay, even by relying on later case law; the attempted belated availment was therefore impermissible and the disallowance was sustained. Interest was also held payable on wrongly availed credit under Rule 14 where the credit was later utilised in part, because interest liability arises from the date of wrong availment rather than only from actual debit or full utilisation. The commentary thus states that lapsed credit cannot be unilaterally restored after acceptance of the lapse, and wrong credit attracts interest from the date it is taken. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356748