https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252173 Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) read with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was challenged on the ground that the centralised registration certificate mentioned only one unit, although export services were rendered from multiple STPI units and common registration had been sought. The omission of the other branch addresses in the certificate was treated as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect. On a prima facie view, that irregularity was not sufficient to justify recovery of the refund already granted, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived with recovery stayed pending appeal. en-us Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:08:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252173 Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. (N.T.) read with Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was challenged on the ground that the centralised registration certificate mentioned only one unit, although export services were rendered from multiple STPI units and common registration had been sought. The omission of the other branch addresses in the certificate was treated as a procedural irregularity rather than a substantive defect. On a prima facie view, that irregularity was not sufficient to justify recovery of the refund already granted, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived with recovery stayed pending appeal. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 16 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252173