https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374934 A challenge to a refund order was held maintainable where the assessee had sought modification of the original sanction, and rejection of that modification request was treated as sufficient to question the underlying refund determination. The appeal was also held within limitation because time spent before the adjudicating authority on the modification request was excluded for computing delay. On the merits, Section 142(3) of the CGST Act required refund to be sanctioned in cash, so crediting the refund to the Cenvat account was inconsistent with the statutory mandate and could not be sustained. The order was set aside and cash refund with consequential relief was directed. en-us Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Jun 2019 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374934 A challenge to a refund order was held maintainable where the assessee had sought modification of the original sanction, and rejection of that modification request was treated as sufficient to question the underlying refund determination. The appeal was also held within limitation because time spent before the adjudicating authority on the modification request was excluded for computing delay. On the merits, Section 142(3) of the CGST Act required refund to be sanctioned in cash, so crediting the refund to the Cenvat account was inconsistent with the statutory mandate and could not be sustained. The order was set aside and cash refund with consequential relief was directed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374934