https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379725 Refund under Notification No. 20/2007-CE could not be denied merely because the statement was filed late or no separate refund claim was submitted in the prescribed form. The Tribunal followed the binding High Court view that the notification required the manufacturer to establish eligibility and file monthly duty-paid statements, but not to comply with a rigid procedural format as a condition for benefit. Where statutory records were maintained, the Range Officer verified them, and the duty-paid details appeared in RT-12 returns and monthly statements, substantial compliance was sufficient. The beneficial exemption had to be construed liberally, so the refund rejection was unsustainable and the assessee remained entitled to consequential relief. en-us Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 May 2019 07:15:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379725 Refund under Notification No. 20/2007-CE could not be denied merely because the statement was filed late or no separate refund claim was submitted in the prescribed form. The Tribunal followed the binding High Court view that the notification required the manufacturer to establish eligibility and file monthly duty-paid statements, but not to comply with a rigid procedural format as a condition for benefit. Where statutory records were maintained, the Range Officer verified them, and the duty-paid details appeared in RT-12 returns and monthly statements, substantial compliance was sufficient. The beneficial exemption had to be construed liberally, so the refund rejection was unsustainable and the assessee remained entitled to consequential relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=379725