https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279053 Refund under an exemption notification was held inadmissible because the manufacturer did not file the prescribed monthly statement of duty paid through PLA by the stipulated deadline. The notification required the statement of duty paid otherwise than through CENVAT credit to be submitted to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority by the 7th of the following month, but the claims were lodged in a consolidated manner for a long period instead of month-wise. As the filing condition was not complied with in the manner and time required, the exemption condition was not satisfied and the rejection of the remaining refund was upheld. en-us Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Mar 2019 07:41:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279053 Refund under an exemption notification was held inadmissible because the manufacturer did not file the prescribed monthly statement of duty paid through PLA by the stipulated deadline. The notification required the statement of duty paid otherwise than through CENVAT credit to be submitted to the jurisdictional Central Excise authority by the 7th of the following month, but the claims were lodged in a consolidated manner for a long period instead of month-wise. As the filing condition was not complied with in the manner and time required, the exemption condition was not satisfied and the rejection of the remaining refund was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279053