https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345727 A second refund claim for the same quarter under the Rent-a-Cab Service refund notification could not be rejected merely because a prior quarterly claim had already been filed. The notification was aimed at regulating the refund process and preventing multiple claims, not at defeating an otherwise admissible refund. Where the service was approved later with retrospective effect from the relevant date, the claimant could not have included it in the earlier claim, and the later claim arose from circumstances beyond its control. The substantive refund benefit was therefore held payable because no prejudice was shown and entitlement under the notification was otherwise established. en-us Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Jul 2017 08:14:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345727 A second refund claim for the same quarter under the Rent-a-Cab Service refund notification could not be rejected merely because a prior quarterly claim had already been filed. The notification was aimed at regulating the refund process and preventing multiple claims, not at defeating an otherwise admissible refund. Where the service was approved later with retrospective effect from the relevant date, the claimant could not have included it in the earlier claim, and the later claim arose from circumstances beyond its control. The substantive refund benefit was therefore held payable because no prejudice was shown and entitlement under the notification was otherwise established. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345727