https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763216 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal by remand regarding a refund claim under Notification No.12/12-NT dated 18-06-2012 for July-September 2014 period. The Revenue denied the claim citing lack of registration requirement. The tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on Eagle Flask Industries case, noting it concerned declaration requirements in exemption notifications, not refund claims. Following Kapu Gems precedent, CESTAT held that refund claims on exported goods cannot be denied solely for absence of registration. The matter was remanded to original authority for verification purposes, with refund deemed permissible in law. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:44:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763216 CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal by remand regarding a refund claim under Notification No.12/12-NT dated 18-06-2012 for July-September 2014 period. The Revenue denied the claim citing lack of registration requirement. The tribunal distinguished the Revenue's reliance on Eagle Flask Industries case, noting it concerned declaration requirements in exemption notifications, not refund claims. Following Kapu Gems precedent, CESTAT held that refund claims on exported goods cannot be denied solely for absence of registration. The matter was remanded to original authority for verification purposes, with refund deemed permissible in law. Case-Laws Service Tax Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763216