https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336525 The Tribunal allowed the Respondent's application for changing the company name. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, but the first appellate authority upheld it on merits. The Revenue's argument of improper form filing was dismissed due to lack of appeal against rejection. Dispute over deductions and assessable value was remanded for quantification. The onus of proving the refund amount was on the Respondent. The Tribunal remanded the matter for quantification, requiring the Respondent to provide supporting evidence. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, remanding for refund quantification after a personal hearing for the Respondent. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Nov 2017 18:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336525 The Tribunal allowed the Respondent's application for changing the company name. The Adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim, but the first appellate authority upheld it on merits. The Revenue's argument of improper form filing was dismissed due to lack of appeal against rejection. Dispute over deductions and assessable value was remanded for quantification. The onus of proving the refund amount was on the Respondent. The Tribunal remanded the matter for quantification, requiring the Respondent to provide supporting evidence. The Revenue's appeal was allowed, remanding for refund quantification after a personal hearing for the Respondent. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336525