https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762642 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal regarding refund claim rejection. The appellant had reversed cenvat credit of Rs.5,27,132/- on inputs used for manufacturing sulphur recovery unit. Lower authorities wrongly re-examined admissibility on merit despite tribunal's earlier ruling that 8% value collection on sulphur by-product was inadmissible. Tribunal held unjust enrichment principles don't apply to payments under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Sample invoices confirmed appellant didn't recover 8% amount from customers. Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. Impugned order set aside, refund allowed. en-us Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2024 11:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762642 CESTAT Bangalore allowed the appeal regarding refund claim rejection. The appellant had reversed cenvat credit of Rs.5,27,132/- on inputs used for manufacturing sulphur recovery unit. Lower authorities wrongly re-examined admissibility on merit despite tribunal's earlier ruling that 8% value collection on sulphur by-product was inadmissible. Tribunal held unjust enrichment principles don't apply to payments under Rule 6(3)(b) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. Sample invoices confirmed appellant didn't recover 8% amount from customers. Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence. Impugned order set aside, refund allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762642