https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782393 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting refund claims filed between February 2016 and January 2017. It held that refund could not be denied merely because the appellant cited Notification No. 56/2003-CE instead of the then-effective Notification No. 20/2007-CE. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to grant the refunds along with interest at 6% per annum, payable after three months from the original dates of filing the refund claims, and to process and disburse the amounts within eight weeks of receipt of the order. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 11:35:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782393 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order rejecting refund claims filed between February 2016 and January 2017. It held that refund could not be denied merely because the appellant cited Notification No. 56/2003-CE instead of the then-effective Notification No. 20/2007-CE. The Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to grant the refunds along with interest at 6% per annum, payable after three months from the original dates of filing the refund claims, and to process and disburse the amounts within eight weeks of receipt of the order. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782393