https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87042 Refund under Notification No. 59/78-C.E. could not be denied merely because State Transport Authority certificates were filed after the prescribed period, where the substantive condition of registration for use solely on hire had been satisfied. The time limit for furnishing the certificates was procedural, not a condition going to eligibility, and the later filing cured the lapse. The concessional benefit therefore remained available, and the refund claim could not be rejected on delay alone. en-us Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Sep 2011 14:14:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87042 Refund under Notification No. 59/78-C.E. could not be denied merely because State Transport Authority certificates were filed after the prescribed period, where the substantive condition of registration for use solely on hire had been satisfied. The time limit for furnishing the certificates was procedural, not a condition going to eligibility, and the later filing cured the lapse. The concessional benefit therefore remained available, and the refund claim could not be rejected on delay alone. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87042