https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427996 A Single Member Bench was treated as competent to hear a Cenvat credit dispute because the jurisdictional objection was not raised at the earliest stage and the matter was not regarded as one of classification or duty rate. On the substantive issue, Cenvat credit on disputed inputs cleared for export under bond was held admissible, because the export scheme does not contemplate export of taxes and the absence of an express statutory requirement for reversal could not justify denial of credit merely because no rebate under Rule 18 was claimed. The commentary notes that credit was retained and consequential relief followed. en-us Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2022 09:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427996 A Single Member Bench was treated as competent to hear a Cenvat credit dispute because the jurisdictional objection was not raised at the earliest stage and the matter was not regarded as one of classification or duty rate. On the substantive issue, Cenvat credit on disputed inputs cleared for export under bond was held admissible, because the export scheme does not contemplate export of taxes and the absence of an express statutory requirement for reversal could not justify denial of credit merely because no rebate under Rule 18 was claimed. The commentary notes that credit was retained and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427996