https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398669 The tribunal upheld the limitation but remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority to examine refund claims within the limitation period. The appellant's arguments concerning the inbuilt mechanism of re-credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the reversal of Cenvat Credit before adjudication of refund claims were considered. The tribunal allowed part of the refund rejected for goods supplied to 100% EOU. The appeals were partly allowed based on the arguments presented, with a decision pronounced in open court on a specified date. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Sep 2020 09:35:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398669 The tribunal upheld the limitation but remanded the matter back to the original Adjudicating Authority to examine refund claims within the limitation period. The appellant's arguments concerning the inbuilt mechanism of re-credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the reversal of Cenvat Credit before adjudication of refund claims were considered. The tribunal allowed part of the refund rejected for goods supplied to 100% EOU. The appeals were partly allowed based on the arguments presented, with a decision pronounced in open court on a specified date. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398669