https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357055 The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B. The Appellant's correction of the mistake by re-crediting the Cenvat account in the same month of payment was deemed permissible. The refund claim was considered to have arisen only after the credit reversal in September 2014, falling within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the refund was allowed, considering the specific circumstances of the case. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Mar 2019 11:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357055 The Member (Judicial) allowed the appeal, ruling that the refund claim was not time-barred under Section 11B. The Appellant's correction of the mistake by re-crediting the Cenvat account in the same month of payment was deemed permissible. The refund claim was considered to have arisen only after the credit reversal in September 2014, falling within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the refund was allowed, considering the specific circumstances of the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357055