https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756382 CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant's suo moto recredit of duty was impermissible under Central Excise provisions, as refunds must be claimed through Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944, citing SC precedents in Mafatlal Industries and Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal. However, the demand was time-barred as no suppression was established - the recredit was transparently shown in appellant's cenvat credit account. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to justify invoking extended limitation period under Section 11A proviso. Since duty was paid under protest with no time limit for refund claims, suppression allegations were unsustainable. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. en-us Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Aug 2024 10:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756382 CESTAT Bangalore held that appellant's suo moto recredit of duty was impermissible under Central Excise provisions, as refunds must be claimed through Section 11B of Central Excise Act 1944, citing SC precedents in Mafatlal Industries and Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal. However, the demand was time-barred as no suppression was established - the recredit was transparently shown in appellant's cenvat credit account. Commissioner (Appeals) failed to justify invoking extended limitation period under Section 11A proviso. Since duty was paid under protest with no time limit for refund claims, suppression allegations were unsustainable. Appeal allowed, impugned order set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756382