https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465526 The dominant issue was whether a refund could be granted under s. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to effectively monetize CENVAT credit arising from belated discharge of tax after the credit scheme and transitional provisions had ceased to operate. The Tribunal held that s. 11B is intended to restitute duty/tax paid in excess of legal authorization and is not a mechanism for monetization of credit, which is generally permissible only in export situations under r. 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; however, it also noted that tax was accepted as paid and payment ordinarily carries credit entitlement, though the credit-taking mechanism was unavailable due to legal eclipse. The impugned order was set aside and the refund application remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 19:04:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465526 The dominant issue was whether a refund could be granted under s. 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to effectively monetize CENVAT credit arising from belated discharge of tax after the credit scheme and transitional provisions had ceased to operate. The Tribunal held that s. 11B is intended to restitute duty/tax paid in excess of legal authorization and is not a mechanism for monetization of credit, which is generally permissible only in export situations under r. 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004; however, it also noted that tax was accepted as paid and payment ordinarily carries credit entitlement, though the credit-taking mechanism was unavailable due to legal eclipse. The impugned order was set aside and the refund application remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465526