https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339666 Notification No. 32/99-CE prescribed a post-clearance monthly refund mechanism based on deemed value addition and actual duty payment otherwise than through CENVAT credit. The refund could not be curtailed by an unsupported assumption that duty paid on the last day of the month should be attributed to a particular product, because the claim had to be processed from the records and the actual mode of payment. Splitting the refund claim without evidentiary basis was beyond the proper scope of processing the claim, so the refund could not be artificially reduced on conjecture. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Feb 2018 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339666 Notification No. 32/99-CE prescribed a post-clearance monthly refund mechanism based on deemed value addition and actual duty payment otherwise than through CENVAT credit. The refund could not be curtailed by an unsupported assumption that duty paid on the last day of the month should be attributed to a particular product, because the claim had to be processed from the records and the actual mode of payment. Splitting the refund claim without evidentiary basis was beyond the proper scope of processing the claim, so the refund could not be artificially reduced on conjecture. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339666