https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788489 Delay in filing the statement prescribed under Para 4(a) or Para 5(d) of Notification No. 01/2010-CE was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect. Because the underlying conditions for the exemption/refund benefit were otherwise satisfied, the belated filing did not defeat admissibility of the claim. CESTAT Chandigarh held that denial of refund solely on account of delayed compliance was unsustainable and set aside the refusal, granting the benefit to the assessee with consequential relief as per law. en-us Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2026 08:12:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788489 Delay in filing the statement prescribed under Para 4(a) or Para 5(d) of Notification No. 01/2010-CE was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive defect. Because the underlying conditions for the exemption/refund benefit were otherwise satisfied, the belated filing did not defeat admissibility of the claim. CESTAT Chandigarh held that denial of refund solely on account of delayed compliance was unsustainable and set aside the refusal, granting the benefit to the assessee with consequential relief as per law. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 19 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788489