https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463263 CESTAT held the cash payment was a recovery confirmed by the Commissioner, not a Section 35F pre-deposit, since the deposit preceded the stay hearing. The tribunal found the appellant was not eligible to claim CENVAT credit of the contested duty under normal credit rules and disallowed CENVAT credit, but permitted the appellant to treat the cash payment as credited to its PLA/Account Current (paid via GAR-7) for accounting purposes. Appeal disposed. en-us Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Aug 2025 20:55:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463263 CESTAT held the cash payment was a recovery confirmed by the Commissioner, not a Section 35F pre-deposit, since the deposit preceded the stay hearing. The tribunal found the appellant was not eligible to claim CENVAT credit of the contested duty under normal credit rules and disallowed CENVAT credit, but permitted the appellant to treat the cash payment as credited to its PLA/Account Current (paid via GAR-7) for accounting purposes. Appeal disposed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463263