https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359727 The appellant availed re-credit through the cenvat account for clearances in October 2010 but referenced a cash payment instead of the duty paid through cenvat. The department argued against re-credit due to the incorrect reference. The appellant's counsel argued for re-credit based on the Tribunal's order allowing similar situations. The judgment upheld re-credit for cenvat credit utilized in May & June 2014, clarifying the double duty payment issue. The procedural error in referencing cash payment did not result in excess credit. The impugned order denying credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 May 2018 08:47:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359727 The appellant availed re-credit through the cenvat account for clearances in October 2010 but referenced a cash payment instead of the duty paid through cenvat. The department argued against re-credit due to the incorrect reference. The appellant's counsel argued for re-credit based on the Tribunal's order allowing similar situations. The judgment upheld re-credit for cenvat credit utilized in May & June 2014, clarifying the double duty payment issue. The procedural error in referencing cash payment did not result in excess credit. The impugned order denying credit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359727