https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779653 Concessional duty under Notification No. 01/2011-CE was unavailable where the assessee had taken CENVAT credit on inputs and input services and only partially reversed it, because the notification required that no such credit be availed. The later reversal did not cure non-compliance, so refund of the differential duty was not permissible on that basis. Refund proceedings also could not be used to reopen a duty liability that had been paid under an assessment which had not been challenged or set aside. The discussion applies the finality of assessment principle and the binding effect of the Supreme Court decisions in Mafatlal Industries, Flock (India), Priya Blue Industries, and ITC Ltd. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Oct 2025 08:44:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779653 Concessional duty under Notification No. 01/2011-CE was unavailable where the assessee had taken CENVAT credit on inputs and input services and only partially reversed it, because the notification required that no such credit be availed. The later reversal did not cure non-compliance, so refund of the differential duty was not permissible on that basis. Refund proceedings also could not be used to reopen a duty liability that had been paid under an assessment which had not been challenged or set aside. The discussion applies the finality of assessment principle and the binding effect of the Supreme Court decisions in Mafatlal Industries, Flock (India), Priya Blue Industries, and ITC Ltd. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779653