https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98971 Non-compliance with Chapter X procedure was treated as a procedural lapse and did not defeat substantive entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 217/85-C.E. where the assessee otherwise qualified for the benefit. The refund claim was also held not barred by unjust enrichment because a debit note or demand entry, by itself, does not prove that duty incidence was passed on. On the facts noted, the units were regarded as part of the same company with a common balance sheet, and there was no showing that duty had been recovered from an independent customer. Refund with consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 10 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:10:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98971 Non-compliance with Chapter X procedure was treated as a procedural lapse and did not defeat substantive entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 217/85-C.E. where the assessee otherwise qualified for the benefit. The refund claim was also held not barred by unjust enrichment because a debit note or demand entry, by itself, does not prove that duty incidence was passed on. On the facts noted, the units were regarded as part of the same company with a common balance sheet, and there was no showing that duty had been recovered from an independent customer. Refund with consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98971