https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392722 A claim seeking only restoration of reversed Cenvat credit, rather than cash refund of duty, was treated as a reversal of an accounting entry and not as a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, so the refund limitation did not apply. The Court also treated the prescribed refund form as procedural where Rule 4(5)(a)(iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 supported re-credit on return of inputs or capital goods within the prescribed period, and held that substantive entitlement to restoration could not be defeated by the form used. The assessee was therefore entitled to re-credit, and rejection on procedural grounds was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Feb 2021 13:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392722 A claim seeking only restoration of reversed Cenvat credit, rather than cash refund of duty, was treated as a reversal of an accounting entry and not as a refund claim under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, so the refund limitation did not apply. The Court also treated the prescribed refund form as procedural where Rule 4(5)(a)(iii) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 supported re-credit on return of inputs or capital goods within the prescribed period, and held that substantive entitlement to restoration could not be defeated by the form used. The assessee was therefore entitled to re-credit, and rejection on procedural grounds was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392722