https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449807 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal challenging recovery of erroneously availed refund under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had complied with Notification 56/2002-CE conditions by utilizing entire Cenvat Credit before paying duty through PLA and claiming refund. Commissioner wrongly interpreted "Cenvat Credit available" - credit exists only after entry in Cenvat Register, not merely upon receipt of inputs. Appellant's non-availment of credit on furnace oil was bonafide, not intentional suppression for excess refund. Since appellant paid duty in cash/PLA and claimed equivalent refund, transaction was revenue neutral. No suppression established, hence extended limitation period not applicable. Demand was time-barred and impugned order set aside. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449807 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal challenging recovery of erroneously availed refund under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant had complied with Notification 56/2002-CE conditions by utilizing entire Cenvat Credit before paying duty through PLA and claiming refund. Commissioner wrongly interpreted "Cenvat Credit available" - credit exists only after entry in Cenvat Register, not merely upon receipt of inputs. Appellant's non-availment of credit on furnace oil was bonafide, not intentional suppression for excess refund. Since appellant paid duty in cash/PLA and claimed equivalent refund, transaction was revenue neutral. No suppression established, hence extended limitation period not applicable. Demand was time-barred and impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449807