https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376391 The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant successfully argued for the permissibility of suo moto recredit to rectify errors, supported by legal precedents. The appellant's prompt correction of the excess payment was deemed valid, and the court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing their entitlement to take suo moto credit. The court rejected the Revenue's appeal, holding that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply when payments are made by mistake and actions are based on incorrect advice from Revenue Authorities. en-us Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Mar 2019 08:08:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376391 The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Commissioner under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant successfully argued for the permissibility of suo moto recredit to rectify errors, supported by legal precedents. The appellant's prompt correction of the excess payment was deemed valid, and the court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing their entitlement to take suo moto credit. The court rejected the Revenue's appeal, holding that the limitation under Section 11B does not apply when payments are made by mistake and actions are based on incorrect advice from Revenue Authorities. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=376391