https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791825 A rectification application was allowed to clarify the operative portion of an earlier order that had remanded refund eligibility for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted that nexus could be examined only if a subsisting demand existed under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and that any direction on entitlement to credit under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) and Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would be premature until the refund claim was adjudicated afresh. The operative portion was substituted to reflect the scope of remand and the treatment of any amount later found ineligible for refund. en-us Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2026 08:18:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791825 A rectification application was allowed to clarify the operative portion of an earlier order that had remanded refund eligibility for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted that nexus could be examined only if a subsisting demand existed under Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, and that any direction on entitlement to credit under Notification No. 27/2012-CE(NT) and Section 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 would be premature until the refund claim was adjudicated afresh. The operative portion was substituted to reflect the scope of remand and the treatment of any amount later found ineligible for refund. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 15 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791825