https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344574 The Tribunal allowed all appeals of the appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting Thermistors/Sensors, regarding the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The rejection was based on technicalities like non-availability of evidence in Form E-2, time-bar limitations, and absence of a Chartered Accountant certificate at the time of filing. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a balanced approach, setting aside the previous decision and granting consequential relief to the appellant, highlighting that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. en-us Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344574 The Tribunal allowed all appeals of the appellant, a 100% EOU manufacturing and exporting Thermistors/Sensors, regarding the rejection of refund claims under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. The rejection was based on technicalities like non-availability of evidence in Form E-2, time-bar limitations, and absence of a Chartered Accountant certificate at the time of filing. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a balanced approach, setting aside the previous decision and granting consequential relief to the appellant, highlighting that procedural lapses should not result in the denial of substantive benefits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344574