https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201448 A rebate claim under the Central Excise Act was tested against the limitation law in force on the date of filing, and the amended one-year period under Section 11B applied, so the claim was within time. Non-filing of the Disclaimer Certificate with AR4 was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar, because the certificate was produced at the personal hearing and the record showed duty payment and export of the goods. On that basis, substantial compliance was accepted and the rebate could not be denied for want of contemporaneous filing of the certificate. en-us Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 09 Jan 2011 19:44:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201448 A rebate claim under the Central Excise Act was tested against the limitation law in force on the date of filing, and the amended one-year period under Section 11B applied, so the claim was within time. Non-filing of the Disclaimer Certificate with AR4 was treated as a procedural defect, not a substantive bar, because the certificate was produced at the personal hearing and the record showed duty payment and export of the goods. On that basis, substantial compliance was accepted and the rebate could not be denied for want of contemporaneous filing of the certificate. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 13 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201448