<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1997 (7) TMI 383 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87789</link>
    <description>Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a procedural requirement intended to facilitate rebate claims, not as a mandatory bar defeating them on technical grounds. The proviso allowing the Collector to relax the procedure where the same duty-paid goods were exported showed that compliance could be waived when duty payment, export, and identity of goods were undisputed. On that basis, the rebate claim was accepted and rebate of duty was held admissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Dec 2025 00:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=124855" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (7) TMI 383 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87789</link>
      <description>Rule 12(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was treated as a procedural requirement intended to facilitate rebate claims, not as a mandatory bar defeating them on technical grounds. The proviso allowing the Collector to relax the procedure where the same duty-paid goods were exported showed that compliance could be waived when duty payment, export, and identity of goods were undisputed. On that basis, the rebate claim was accepted and rebate of duty was held admissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87789</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>