https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782971 Notification No. 20/2007-CE was treated as imposing a mandatory condition, so premature re-credit of Cenvat credit could not be excused merely on a revenue-neutrality argument. The Tribunal, however, noted that the transaction caused no enduring gain and that the premature re-credit, at most, could justify interest for the intervening period rather than disallowance of the entire demand. It also held that the extended period could not be invoked because the credit availment, utilisation, and re-credit figures were disclosed in monthly returns and the Department took no timely action. The extended-period demand, along with interest and penalty on that part, was therefore set aside. en-us Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 08:31:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782971 Notification No. 20/2007-CE was treated as imposing a mandatory condition, so premature re-credit of Cenvat credit could not be excused merely on a revenue-neutrality argument. The Tribunal, however, noted that the transaction caused no enduring gain and that the premature re-credit, at most, could justify interest for the intervening period rather than disallowance of the entire demand. It also held that the extended period could not be invoked because the credit availment, utilisation, and re-credit figures were disclosed in monthly returns and the Department took no timely action. The extended-period demand, along with interest and penalty on that part, was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782971