https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755086 The Madras HC allowed writ petitions challenging rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department rejected rebate claims alleging petitioner wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on Stainless Steel Casting and Non-Alloyed Steel under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The HC held that previous Division Bench orders confirmed the Cenvat Credit was validly availed by petitioner. Since the Cenvat Credit was deemed validly availed and utilized for discharging excise duty liability on exports, rebate claims could not be denied. The impugned orders rejecting rebate claims were quashed. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jul 2024 12:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755086 The Madras HC allowed writ petitions challenging rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The department rejected rebate claims alleging petitioner wrongly availed Cenvat Credit on Stainless Steel Casting and Non-Alloyed Steel under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. The HC held that previous Division Bench orders confirmed the Cenvat Credit was validly availed by petitioner. Since the Cenvat Credit was deemed validly availed and utilized for discharging excise duty liability on exports, rebate claims could not be denied. The impugned orders rejecting rebate claims were quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755086