https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781210 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the reversal of CENVAT credit for unsold units following issue of completion certificate was not legally permissible. The panel found the 2016 amendment to Rule 6 CCR prospective and could not be invoked retroactively; credit entitlement is determined on the date of availment. As the reversal was erroneous, the appellant is entitled to refund of the amounts wrongly reversed. Section 142(3) of the CGST Act precludes denial on time-bar grounds under Section 11B and limits refusal to cases of unjust enrichment; impugned orders set aside. en-us Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2025 08:14:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781210 CESTAT allowed the appeal, holding the reversal of CENVAT credit for unsold units following issue of completion certificate was not legally permissible. The panel found the 2016 amendment to Rule 6 CCR prospective and could not be invoked retroactively; credit entitlement is determined on the date of availment. As the reversal was erroneous, the appellant is entitled to refund of the amounts wrongly reversed. Section 142(3) of the CGST Act precludes denial on time-bar grounds under Section 11B and limits refusal to cases of unjust enrichment; impugned orders set aside. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 11 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781210