https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31973 Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under the amended Rule 5 could not be denied merely because the exports occurred before the amendment, where the claim otherwise satisfied the rule and notification. The notification's reference to monthly filing was directory, not mandatory, so a consolidated yearly claim could not be rejected solely for not being filed month-wise. The claim nevertheless remained subject to the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and the refund entitlement had to be examined accordingly. en-us Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31973 Refund of unutilised Cenvat credit under the amended Rule 5 could not be denied merely because the exports occurred before the amendment, where the claim otherwise satisfied the rule and notification. The notification's reference to monthly filing was directory, not mandatory, so a consolidated yearly claim could not be rejected solely for not being filed month-wise. The claim nevertheless remained subject to the limitation period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, and the refund entitlement had to be examined accordingly. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31973