https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445028 CESTAT Mumbai held that the authority under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot dispose of refund claims on grounds of being premature. The appellant's refund application of Rs. 1,19,37,987 deposited during July 2004 to February 2009 was improperly rejected without proper consideration of eligibility. The tribunal found that factual aspects regarding eligibility for notification no. 30/2004-CE benefits, including CENVAT credit reversal and manufacturing facility requirements, were not examined by lower authorities. The impugned order was set aside and all disputes restored to the original authority for fresh determination and re-adjudication. en-us Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 29 Oct 2023 20:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445028 CESTAT Mumbai held that the authority under section 11B of Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot dispose of refund claims on grounds of being premature. The appellant's refund application of Rs. 1,19,37,987 deposited during July 2004 to February 2009 was improperly rejected without proper consideration of eligibility. The tribunal found that factual aspects regarding eligibility for notification no. 30/2004-CE benefits, including CENVAT credit reversal and manufacturing facility requirements, were not examined by lower authorities. The impugned order was set aside and all disputes restored to the original authority for fresh determination and re-adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 11 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=445028