https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349632 Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should not be denied merely because invoices or related documents contain procedural or technical defects when the services are stated to have been used for the unit and for export of the final product. The Tribunal treated the rejection as resting on hyper-technical objections rather than a substantive finding that the services were ineligible, and held that the refund claim required fresh verification. The matter was remanded to the original authority to examine receipt of inputs and input services, purchase orders, service dates, supporting records, and the Chartered Accountant certificate after following principles of natural justice. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Oct 2017 08:18:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349632 Refund under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 should not be denied merely because invoices or related documents contain procedural or technical defects when the services are stated to have been used for the unit and for export of the final product. The Tribunal treated the rejection as resting on hyper-technical objections rather than a substantive finding that the services were ineligible, and held that the refund claim required fresh verification. The matter was remanded to the original authority to examine receipt of inputs and input services, purchase orders, service dates, supporting records, and the Chartered Accountant certificate after following principles of natural justice. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349632