https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770736 Substantial expansion and filing of monthly duty-paid RT-12/ER-1 statements were treated as sufficient compliance with Notification No. 33/99-C.E., because the record showed the prescribed expansion threshold had been met and duty payment had been reflected in returns. A separate formal refund application was not required where the notification only demanded proof of eligibility and statement filing. Delay in making a formal refund claim therefore did not defeat the exemption or refund entitlement, since procedural lapse could not override substantive compliance once eligibility was established. The refund claim was accordingly upheld and the departmental objection rejected. en-us Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770736 Substantial expansion and filing of monthly duty-paid RT-12/ER-1 statements were treated as sufficient compliance with Notification No. 33/99-C.E., because the record showed the prescribed expansion threshold had been met and duty payment had been reflected in returns. A separate formal refund application was not required where the notification only demanded proof of eligibility and statement filing. Delay in making a formal refund claim therefore did not defeat the exemption or refund entitlement, since procedural lapse could not override substantive compliance once eligibility was established. The refund claim was accordingly upheld and the departmental objection rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770736