https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343766 The Judicial Member set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision rejecting refund claims by the appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting Silk Fabrics. The appellant's contention that denial of refund was not legally sustainable was supported by judicial precedents. The Judicial Member allowed most refund claims, except for a specific amount where adequate documentation was lacking. Emphasizing that procedural issues should not hinder the substantive benefits of CENVAT credit, the decision highlighted that credit should not be denied for services used in manufacturing export goods, even if invoices were addressed to the Head Office instead of the factory. en-us Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Jun 2017 07:24:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343766 The Judicial Member set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision rejecting refund claims by the appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting Silk Fabrics. The appellant's contention that denial of refund was not legally sustainable was supported by judicial precedents. The Judicial Member allowed most refund claims, except for a specific amount where adequate documentation was lacking. Emphasizing that procedural issues should not hinder the substantive benefits of CENVAT credit, the decision highlighted that credit should not be denied for services used in manufacturing export goods, even if invoices were addressed to the Head Office instead of the factory. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343766