https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763212 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appellant's refund claim under exemption notifications No.12/2012-CE and No.108/95-CE. The tribunal held that conditions inserted by subsequent notification No.12/2015-CE were not applicable to March 2013 clearances, and the original exemption conditions were satisfied. Regarding procedural lapses, the tribunal ruled that belated production of mandatory certificates was condonable where certificates existed contemporaneously with clearances. The tribunal accepted CA certificates as sufficient proof that duty burden was not passed on to customers, rejecting unjust enrichment objections since customers were aware of exemption entitlements. en-us Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Dec 2024 12:21:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763212 CESTAT Chennai allowed the appellant's refund claim under exemption notifications No.12/2012-CE and No.108/95-CE. The tribunal held that conditions inserted by subsequent notification No.12/2015-CE were not applicable to March 2013 clearances, and the original exemption conditions were satisfied. Regarding procedural lapses, the tribunal ruled that belated production of mandatory certificates was condonable where certificates existed contemporaneously with clearances. The tribunal accepted CA certificates as sufficient proof that duty burden was not passed on to customers, rejecting unjust enrichment objections since customers were aware of exemption entitlements. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763212