https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765251 Duty paid in advance for a period when the factory remained closed pursuant to a binding Supreme Court order was refundable because no manufacturing activity took place during that interval. The Tribunal followed the assessee's earlier case and held that reopening after interim protection did not alter the refund position for the closed days. A procedural lapse could not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund where the closure was compelled by court order and duty had been paid for a period in which no duty-liable manufacture occurred. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2025 09:00:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765251 Duty paid in advance for a period when the factory remained closed pursuant to a binding Supreme Court order was refundable because no manufacturing activity took place during that interval. The Tribunal followed the assessee's earlier case and held that reopening after interim protection did not alter the refund position for the closed days. A procedural lapse could not defeat the substantive entitlement to refund where the closure was compelled by court order and duty had been paid for a period in which no duty-liable manufacture occurred. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765251