https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794702 Suo motu re-credit of Cenvat credit during pending revision was upheld on the peculiar facts, even though no specific statutory provision authorised such re-credit. The HC noted that the rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been rejected, but the underlying rebate entitlement was not disputed and the authorities had been informed before the credit was taken. Given the prolonged uncertainty and the cited precedent on technical reversal of credit, the re-credit was treated as justified and not as a general precedent. The communication directing immediate payment and recovery was quashed. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:39:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794702 Suo motu re-credit of Cenvat credit during pending revision was upheld on the peculiar facts, even though no specific statutory provision authorised such re-credit. The HC noted that the rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 had been rejected, but the underlying rebate entitlement was not disputed and the authorities had been informed before the credit was taken. Given the prolonged uncertainty and the cited precedent on technical reversal of credit, the re-credit was treated as justified and not as a general precedent. The communication directing immediate payment and recovery was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794702