https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399888 Refund under Notification No. 33/99-CE could not be denied for delay where the assessee had satisfied the substantive eligibility condition of substantial expansion in installed capacity by at least 25%. The notification did not prescribe a separate limitation period for filing the refund claim, and the Tribunal followed the binding High Court ruling that procedural delay cannot defeat a beneficial exemption where basic eligibility is established. Filing duty-paid statements in RT-12 returns was treated as substantial compliance, and a separate refund application was held unnecessary. The prior Revenue decision was distinguished on facts, and the assessee was entitled to the refund. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Oct 2020 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399888 Refund under Notification No. 33/99-CE could not be denied for delay where the assessee had satisfied the substantive eligibility condition of substantial expansion in installed capacity by at least 25%. The notification did not prescribe a separate limitation period for filing the refund claim, and the Tribunal followed the binding High Court ruling that procedural delay cannot defeat a beneficial exemption where basic eligibility is established. Filing duty-paid statements in RT-12 returns was treated as substantial compliance, and a separate refund application was held unnecessary. The prior Revenue decision was distinguished on facts, and the assessee was entitled to the refund. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399888