https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403811 The court held that the application for refund of countervailing duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is only maintainable if the goods qualify as inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules and are brought into the factory for re-making, refining, or re-conditioning under Rule 16. As the appellant's goods did not meet these criteria, the refund claim was deemed not maintainable. The court upheld the CESTAT's decision denying the refund, stating it was legally and factually correct, and dismissed the appeal without costs. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403811 The court held that the application for refund of countervailing duty under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act is only maintainable if the goods qualify as inputs under the Cenvat Credit Rules and are brought into the factory for re-making, refining, or re-conditioning under Rule 16. As the appellant's goods did not meet these criteria, the refund claim was deemed not maintainable. The court upheld the CESTAT's decision denying the refund, stating it was legally and factually correct, and dismissed the appeal without costs. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403811