https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415759 Refund litigation remained confined to the duty components specifically challenged in the appeal; where rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty was never separately disputed before the Commissioner (Appeals), nothing survived for Tribunal review on that aspect and the appeal was not maintainable on that ground. On the substantive refund issue, the amended notification limiting refund to 75% was treated as valid and binding, and refund was therefore restricted to the extent permitted by the amended regime rather than the full duty paid from PLA. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling in VVF Limited and applied the notified cap. en-us Wed, 08 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Dec 2021 14:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415759 Refund litigation remained confined to the duty components specifically challenged in the appeal; where rejection of refund of differential basic excise duty was never separately disputed before the Commissioner (Appeals), nothing survived for Tribunal review on that aspect and the appeal was not maintainable on that ground. On the substantive refund issue, the amended notification limiting refund to 75% was treated as valid and binding, and refund was therefore restricted to the extent permitted by the amended regime rather than the full duty paid from PLA. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's ruling in VVF Limited and applied the notified cap. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415759