https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369746 Refund claims under Notification No. 41/2012-ST could not be rejected solely because the Assistant Commissioner failed to record his satisfaction under paragraph 3(k) before sanctioning refund. The substantive conditions of the notification were not found to be unfulfilled by the claimant; the defect lay only in the Original Authority's omission to record the satisfaction required of it under the notification. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the Original Authority after recording the requisite satisfaction, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. en-us Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Nov 2018 13:41:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369746 Refund claims under Notification No. 41/2012-ST could not be rejected solely because the Assistant Commissioner failed to record his satisfaction under paragraph 3(k) before sanctioning refund. The substantive conditions of the notification were not found to be unfulfilled by the claimant; the defect lay only in the Original Authority's omission to record the satisfaction required of it under the notification. The matter therefore required reconsideration by the Original Authority after recording the requisite satisfaction, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369746