https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78507 Misdeclaration in a refund claim justified invocation of suppression and the extended limitation period where the appellant had stated that no prior refund had been claimed, but the exported goods had already been covered by rebate obtained through merchant exporters. The rebate on export was treated in substance as a refund of duty and was sanctioned on the manufacturer's authorisation, so the merchant exporter was regarded as acting for the appellant in the rebate process. Recovery was therefore sustained against the appellant, not the merchant exporter, and the objection based on absence of review under Section 35E did not assist the appellant in view of the Tribunal precedent relied on by the Revenue. The demand and penalty were upheld. en-us Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:31:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78507 Misdeclaration in a refund claim justified invocation of suppression and the extended limitation period where the appellant had stated that no prior refund had been claimed, but the exported goods had already been covered by rebate obtained through merchant exporters. The rebate on export was treated in substance as a refund of duty and was sanctioned on the manufacturer's authorisation, so the merchant exporter was regarded as acting for the appellant in the rebate process. Recovery was therefore sustained against the appellant, not the merchant exporter, and the objection based on absence of review under Section 35E did not assist the appellant in view of the Tribunal precedent relied on by the Revenue. The demand and penalty were upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78507