https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268529 A refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was treated as maintainable where the assessee had debited the refund amount in the CENVAT credit account on the date of filing, before the show cause notice and adjudication. Failure to reflect that debit in the ER-2 return for the relevant month was regarded as a minor procedural lapse, not a substantive defect. Clause 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(N.T.) was read as a revenue-protection mechanism during processing, and the provision allowing restoration of credit if refund is sanctioned only in part reinforced its procedural character. On substantial compliance, the condition was held directory and the refund was not defeated for want of return reporting. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Nov 2015 12:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268529 A refund claim under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules was treated as maintainable where the assessee had debited the refund amount in the CENVAT credit account on the date of filing, before the show cause notice and adjudication. Failure to reflect that debit in the ER-2 return for the relevant month was regarded as a minor procedural lapse, not a substantive defect. Clause 2(h) of Notification No. 27/2012-CE(N.T.) was read as a revenue-protection mechanism during processing, and the provision allowing restoration of credit if refund is sanctioned only in part reinforced its procedural character. On substantial compliance, the condition was held directory and the refund was not defeated for want of return reporting. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268529