https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391443 Refund claims filed when the LTU had jurisdiction could not be rejected later for lack of jurisdiction merely because the assessee exited the LTU; the pending claims had to be transferred to the competent authority and decided on merits after due process. The remand for verification was unsustainable because the original authority had already examined refund entitlement and recorded findings on compliance with Circular No. 74/2001. The 2017 amendment to the circular could not be used to disturb earlier claims, as it was treated as prospective in this context. The jurisdictional rejection and remand were set aside, and the claims were directed to be decided in accordance with law and natural justice. en-us Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2020 06:51:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391443 Refund claims filed when the LTU had jurisdiction could not be rejected later for lack of jurisdiction merely because the assessee exited the LTU; the pending claims had to be transferred to the competent authority and decided on merits after due process. The remand for verification was unsustainable because the original authority had already examined refund entitlement and recorded findings on compliance with Circular No. 74/2001. The 2017 amendment to the circular could not be used to disturb earlier claims, as it was treated as prospective in this context. The jurisdictional rejection and remand were set aside, and the claims were directed to be decided in accordance with law and natural justice. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391443