https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123240 Refund under Notification No. 64/2003-C.E. could not be denied merely because the cheque numbers in the refund receipts did not match those in the bank realisation certificate. The mismatch was explained as arising from cheques issued first by the manufacturer to the dealer and later by the dealer to the ultimate customers, and affidavits from the customers confirmed that the duty component had in fact been refunded. As the notification did not require production of a bank realisation certificate, the stated objection was not a valid basis to reject the refund claim. The Revenue's challenge to the refund therefore failed. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123240 Refund under Notification No. 64/2003-C.E. could not be denied merely because the cheque numbers in the refund receipts did not match those in the bank realisation certificate. The mismatch was explained as arising from cheques issued first by the manufacturer to the dealer and later by the dealer to the ultimate customers, and affidavits from the customers confirmed that the duty component had in fact been refunded. As the notification did not require production of a bank realisation certificate, the stated objection was not a valid basis to reject the refund claim. The Revenue's challenge to the refund therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123240