<?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>2012 (5) TMI 406 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213569</link>
    <description>Recovery of sanctioned rebate cannot invoke the extended limitation period where rebate claims disclosed duty payment, export, original packing, ARE-1 forms and supplier invoices, leaving no suppression or wilful misstatement. The recovery demand is therefore time-barred. Rebate already granted after verification cannot be recovered solely because the sanctioning officer was allegedly not the proper officer when duty payment and export remain undisputed. Such a jurisdictional irregularity is procedural and does not defeat an otherwise admissible substantive rebate. The revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and recovery proceedings were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 07:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 406 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213569</link>
      <description>Recovery of sanctioned rebate cannot invoke the extended limitation period where rebate claims disclosed duty payment, export, original packing, ARE-1 forms and supplier invoices, leaving no suppression or wilful misstatement. The recovery demand is therefore time-barred. Rebate already granted after verification cannot be recovered solely because the sanctioning officer was allegedly not the proper officer when duty payment and export remain undisputed. Such a jurisdictional irregularity is procedural and does not defeat an otherwise admissible substantive rebate. The revision application was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and recovery proceedings were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213569</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>