https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390177 The amended Rule 5 refund regime governed a later claim for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit filed after 01.04.2012, and the absence of a saving clause meant the earlier accumulation of credit did not preserve a refund entitlement on closure of factory. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not assist because the claim was treated as a fresh refund request made on a new ground after the amendment. The refund claim also failed on limitation, having been filed more than six years after the alleged closure, so the asserted entitlement was not enforceable. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Dec 2019 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390177 The amended Rule 5 refund regime governed a later claim for refund of unutilized Cenvat credit filed after 01.04.2012, and the absence of a saving clause meant the earlier accumulation of credit did not preserve a refund entitlement on closure of factory. Section 6 of the General Clauses Act did not assist because the claim was treated as a fresh refund request made on a new ground after the amendment. The refund claim also failed on limitation, having been filed more than six years after the alleged closure, so the asserted entitlement was not enforceable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390177