https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172314 Entitlement to consequential refund depended on strict compliance with the earlier Supreme Court direction under Rule 56A and Notification No. 71/71-C.E.; the appellants had to satisfy the Commissioner, with supporting material, that the intermediary products were used in the manufacture of final products on which full duty had been paid. As no prepared set-off claim, records, or proof of such correlation was produced, the refund claim was treated as premature and not established. The departmental refusal to grant refund was therefore upheld and the appeal rejected. en-us Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Aug 2015 12:02:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172314 Entitlement to consequential refund depended on strict compliance with the earlier Supreme Court direction under Rule 56A and Notification No. 71/71-C.E.; the appellants had to satisfy the Commissioner, with supporting material, that the intermediary products were used in the manufacture of final products on which full duty had been paid. As no prepared set-off claim, records, or proof of such correlation was produced, the refund claim was treated as premature and not established. The departmental refusal to grant refund was therefore upheld and the appeal rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 30 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172314