https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277149 Retrospective amendments to the North East excise exemption scheme were upheld as a valid legislative measure to ensure refund did not exceed duty actually paid in cash after CENVAT credit treatment. The Court held that "availed of" in the amended notifications meant credit actually used for duty payment, so a mere book entry was insufficient. Recoveries based on non-utilisation of credit were therefore sustained. The Court also held that Section 11A(1) notice was not required because the recoveries flowed from the retrospective deeming amendment, not from an erroneous refund proceeding under that provision. The writ petitions were dismissed. en-us Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Nov 2018 12:18:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277149 Retrospective amendments to the North East excise exemption scheme were upheld as a valid legislative measure to ensure refund did not exceed duty actually paid in cash after CENVAT credit treatment. The Court held that "availed of" in the amended notifications meant credit actually used for duty payment, so a mere book entry was insufficient. Recoveries based on non-utilisation of credit were therefore sustained. The Court also held that Section 11A(1) notice was not required because the recoveries flowed from the retrospective deeming amendment, not from an erroneous refund proceeding under that provision. The writ petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277149