https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84022 The appellant's refund claims were allowed by the CESTAT. For notification No.12/2012-C.E., the condition inserted later in 2015 was not applicable for the relevant period of March 2013, entitling the appellant to exemption. Regarding notification No.108/95-C.E., the belated production of the required certificate was a condonable procedural lapse, and the exemption was allowed as the goods were intended for the specified use. The Chartered Accountant's certificate was accepted as sufficient proof against unjust enrichment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. en-us Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84022 The appellant's refund claims were allowed by the CESTAT. For notification No.12/2012-C.E., the condition inserted later in 2015 was not applicable for the relevant period of March 2013, entitling the appellant to exemption. Regarding notification No.108/95-C.E., the belated production of the required certificate was a condonable procedural lapse, and the exemption was allowed as the goods were intended for the specified use. The Chartered Accountant's certificate was accepted as sufficient proof against unjust enrichment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Highlights Central Excise Mon, 16 Dec 2024 08:44:20 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=84022