https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347520 Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was held admissible for exported goods even though the finished goods were nil-rated, because entitlement depended on export and credit accumulation on inputs used in exported goods, not on the duty rate of the final product. The refund claim could also not be rejected merely for not being filed on a quarterly basis, since that filing mode was treated as procedural and the claim had been lodged within the one-year limitation period under Section 11B. The rejection of refund was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh verification of the remaining factual aspects. en-us Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Sep 2017 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347520 Refund of accumulated Cenvat credit under Rule 5 was held admissible for exported goods even though the finished goods were nil-rated, because entitlement depended on export and credit accumulation on inputs used in exported goods, not on the duty rate of the final product. The refund claim could also not be rejected merely for not being filed on a quarterly basis, since that filing mode was treated as procedural and the claim had been lodged within the one-year limitation period under Section 11B. The rejection of refund was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh verification of the remaining factual aspects. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=347520