https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753636 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit refund rejection. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim solely because the revised return was not filed electronically as required under Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, despite finding the claim within time limitation and the appellant entitled to credit. CESTAT held that the refund claim was within the one-year limitation period from the relevant date of account debiting under Section 11B. The tribunal found that electronic filing of revised return under Section 142(9)(b) is not mandatory, and manual filing due to technical glitches was acceptable, especially when substantial conditions were fulfilled and the return was filed within time. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jun 2024 08:12:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753636 CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding CENVAT credit refund rejection. The adjudicating authority had rejected the refund claim solely because the revised return was not filed electronically as required under Section 142(9)(b) of CGST Act, despite finding the claim within time limitation and the appellant entitled to credit. CESTAT held that the refund claim was within the one-year limitation period from the relevant date of account debiting under Section 11B. The tribunal found that electronic filing of revised return under Section 142(9)(b) is not mandatory, and manual filing due to technical glitches was acceptable, especially when substantial conditions were fulfilled and the return was filed within time. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753636