https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334401 Refund under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) could not be refused merely because the CENVAT credit account was debited after the refund claim was filed. The only defect relied on was the timing of the debit entry, but the substantive refund condition was treated as satisfied once the debit was ultimately made. The failure to debit before filing was therefore not a disqualifying lapse where the underlying requirement stood fulfilled, and the rejection of refund was set aside. en-us Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334401 Refund under Notification No. 27/2012-CE (NT) could not be refused merely because the CENVAT credit account was debited after the refund claim was filed. The only defect relied on was the timing of the debit entry, but the substantive refund condition was treated as satisfied once the debit was ultimately made. The failure to debit before filing was therefore not a disqualifying lapse where the underlying requirement stood fulfilled, and the rejection of refund was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334401