https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113436 A refund claim for duty paid on inputs used in exported goods could not be rejected merely because it was quoted under the wrong rule. The claim had in substance to be examined under Rule 57F(13), which permits adjustment of credit against duty on home clearances and refund of any balance where adjustment is not possible. Misdescription of the provision did not defeat an otherwise available substantive entitlement, and the fact that a fresh claim might later be time-barred was not decisive because the original application was filed in time. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on compliance with Rule 57F(13). en-us Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 May 2012 12:50:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113436 A refund claim for duty paid on inputs used in exported goods could not be rejected merely because it was quoted under the wrong rule. The claim had in substance to be examined under Rule 57F(13), which permits adjustment of credit against duty on home clearances and refund of any balance where adjustment is not possible. Misdescription of the provision did not defeat an otherwise available substantive entitlement, and the fact that a fresh claim might later be time-barred was not decisive because the original application was filed in time. The rejection was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on compliance with Rule 57F(13). Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113436