https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333846 Eligibility under Notification No. 33/99-CE did not automatically establish refund entitlement for all periods, because refund had to be examined claim-wise and month-wise on its own merits. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had addressed only exemption eligibility from 01.06.2000 and had not decided refund for the earlier disputed period. The first appellate authority therefore went beyond the scope of the original decision by denying refund claims on grounds of non-registration and alleged non-fulfilment of notification conditions. That modification was set aside as unwarranted. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333846 Eligibility under Notification No. 33/99-CE did not automatically establish refund entitlement for all periods, because refund had to be examined claim-wise and month-wise on its own merits. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had addressed only exemption eligibility from 01.06.2000 and had not decided refund for the earlier disputed period. The first appellate authority therefore went beyond the scope of the original decision by denying refund claims on grounds of non-registration and alleged non-fulfilment of notification conditions. That modification was set aside as unwarranted. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333846