https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793014 Amounts deposited during litigation were treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, and the earlier Tribunal direction had already required refund after deducting Cenvat credit on inputs used in captively consumed clinker. The original 2016 orders had quantified the refundable sums after verification and deduction, and no appeal was filed against that quantification. The Tribunal noted that this earlier direction did not permit a second deduction or fresh re-quantification of the same credit, and any separate dispute on credit admissibility had to be taken up independently. On that basis, the Revenue was held unable to reopen the concluded quantification, and refund as earlier quantified remained payable. en-us Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:15:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793014 Amounts deposited during litigation were treated as pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, and the earlier Tribunal direction had already required refund after deducting Cenvat credit on inputs used in captively consumed clinker. The original 2016 orders had quantified the refundable sums after verification and deduction, and no appeal was filed against that quantification. The Tribunal noted that this earlier direction did not permit a second deduction or fresh re-quantification of the same credit, and any separate dispute on credit admissibility had to be taken up independently. On that basis, the Revenue was held unable to reopen the concluded quantification, and refund as earlier quantified remained payable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793014