https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366389 Export of goods to Nepal did not justify refund or notification benefit where the prescribed procedure under the relevant notifications was admittedly not followed. The non-compliance was treated as a substantive breach, not a mere technical lapse, because the exemption or concession notifications imposed mandatory conditions for availment. Applying strict construction to such notifications, the benefit could not be extended in the absence of full procedural compliance, and the claim for refund or notification benefit was rejected. en-us Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 07:22:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366389 Export of goods to Nepal did not justify refund or notification benefit where the prescribed procedure under the relevant notifications was admittedly not followed. The non-compliance was treated as a substantive breach, not a mere technical lapse, because the exemption or concession notifications imposed mandatory conditions for availment. Applying strict construction to such notifications, the benefit could not be extended in the absence of full procedural compliance, and the claim for refund or notification benefit was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 24 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366389