https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267853 Refund on exported replacement goods was held not to be time-barred because limitation had to be computed from the original filing made within one year of export, not from resubmission after rectification, and rejection on limitation could not rest on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice. The absence of a letterhead was treated as a non-mandatory procedural defect under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT), and minor procedural lapses could not defeat a refund where export and duty payment were undisputed. Foreign exchange realisation was held irrelevant for free replacement goods. The refund was therefore allowed. en-us Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 May 2016 15:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267853 Refund on exported replacement goods was held not to be time-barred because limitation had to be computed from the original filing made within one year of export, not from resubmission after rectification, and rejection on limitation could not rest on a ground not raised in the show-cause notice. The absence of a letterhead was treated as a non-mandatory procedural defect under Notification No. 19/2004-CE(NT), and minor procedural lapses could not defeat a refund where export and duty payment were undisputed. Foreign exchange realisation was held irrelevant for free replacement goods. The refund was therefore allowed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267853