https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212243 The revision application challenging the rejection of a rebate claim for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing glass beads was dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the claim due to the use of the incorrect export form. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing substantial compliance with notification procedures. The Government upheld the decision, stating that the use of the wrong form was a procedural error and did not invalidate the rebate claim. The admissibility of the rebate claim was affirmed, and the revision application was deemed lacking in merit. en-us Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Apr 2012 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212243 The revision application challenging the rejection of a rebate claim for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing glass beads was dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the claim due to the use of the incorrect export form. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, emphasizing substantial compliance with notification procedures. The Government upheld the decision, stating that the use of the wrong form was a procedural error and did not invalidate the rebate claim. The admissibility of the rebate claim was affirmed, and the revision application was deemed lacking in merit. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212243