<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (3) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51442</link>
    <description>Bona fide restoration of an excess Modvat reversal made under an amnesty scheme was treated as a correction of accounts, not as a refund of excise duty. The department had accepted on verification that the reversal exceeded the amount required, so the assessee&#039;s later re-credit merely restored duty credit already available in the RG 23A records. Section 11B did not apply because the transaction was not a refund claim, and prior departmental permission was not required where the assessee had already informed the Assistant Commissioner before taking the credit back. The demand to reverse the re-credit was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2026 11:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=89920" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (3) TMI 169 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51442</link>
      <description>Bona fide restoration of an excess Modvat reversal made under an amnesty scheme was treated as a correction of accounts, not as a refund of excise duty. The department had accepted on verification that the reversal exceeded the amount required, so the assessee&#039;s later re-credit merely restored duty credit already available in the RG 23A records. Section 11B did not apply because the transaction was not a refund claim, and prior departmental permission was not required where the assessee had already informed the Assistant Commissioner before taking the credit back. The demand to reverse the re-credit was therefore unsustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>