https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113047 A substantive right to refund of unutilised Modvat credit under Rule 57F(13) could not be defeated by procedural objections under the notification where the essential conditions were not shown to be breached. The one-claim-per-calendar-month restriction in Condition No. 2, as modified by Notification No. 40/95-C.E., was not proved to have been violated, and the objection to non-production of original export documents failed because the records had already been submitted for AR-4 closure and were verifiable from the department's own files. The CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the assessee's entitlement to refund, treating the manufacturer's conduct as commercially reasonable. en-us Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 May 2012 15:11:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113047 A substantive right to refund of unutilised Modvat credit under Rule 57F(13) could not be defeated by procedural objections under the notification where the essential conditions were not shown to be breached. The one-claim-per-calendar-month restriction in Condition No. 2, as modified by Notification No. 40/95-C.E., was not proved to have been violated, and the objection to non-production of original export documents failed because the records had already been submitted for AR-4 closure and were verifiable from the department's own files. The CESTAT, Mumbai upheld the assessee's entitlement to refund, treating the manufacturer's conduct as commercially reasonable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113047