https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116452 Refund claims under the excise notification could not be rejected merely for curable discrepancies in vehicle description, engine number or registration particulars; the claimant had to be given an opportunity to rectify the record and file corrected evidence, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration. Compliance with the notification condition on return of excess duty was satisfied where the manufacturer had refunded the excess amount to its immediate buyer and proved that payment; no additional proof of reimbursement through the downstream buyer chain was required, and that refund was allowed. Time-barred claims also required reconsideration because the record did not show whether condonation of delay had been examined, so those matters were remanded for fresh adjudication. en-us Thu, 19 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:32:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116452 Refund claims under the excise notification could not be rejected merely for curable discrepancies in vehicle description, engine number or registration particulars; the claimant had to be given an opportunity to rectify the record and file corrected evidence, and the matters were remanded for fresh consideration. Compliance with the notification condition on return of excess duty was satisfied where the manufacturer had refunded the excess amount to its immediate buyer and proved that payment; no additional proof of reimbursement through the downstream buyer chain was required, and that refund was allowed. Time-barred claims also required reconsideration because the record did not show whether condonation of delay had been examined, so those matters were remanded for fresh adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116452