https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349275 The judgment focused on the rejection of a refund claim solely due to the appellant's quarterly filing frequency instead of monthly, as required by Notification No.11/2002-C.E. (N.T.). The Member (Judicial) allowed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to notification conditions per the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision. However, the judgment highlighted that the denial based solely on filing frequency discrepancy was unwarranted, remanding the matter for a fresh order considering all relevant issues. The decision underscored the importance of comprehensive review before rejecting claims based solely on procedural lapses. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Nov 2017 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349275 The judgment focused on the rejection of a refund claim solely due to the appellant's quarterly filing frequency instead of monthly, as required by Notification No.11/2002-C.E. (N.T.). The Member (Judicial) allowed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to notification conditions per the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision. However, the judgment highlighted that the denial based solely on filing frequency discrepancy was unwarranted, remanding the matter for a fresh order considering all relevant issues. The decision underscored the importance of comprehensive review before rejecting claims based solely on procedural lapses. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349275