https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221374 Rebate under Rule 18 was held inadmissible where the supplier had used irregular or excess credit not reversed within the prescribed period under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., because clause (g) deemed such clearances to be without payment of duty. The exported goods, though invoiced as duty-paid, therefore failed the statutory condition that rebate is available only for export of duty-paid goods. The distinction drawn from cases under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was found inapplicable because the dispute turned on the express wording of the notification. The revision was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and rejection of the rebate claims was restored. en-us Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221374 Rebate under Rule 18 was held inadmissible where the supplier had used irregular or excess credit not reversed within the prescribed period under Notification No. 56/2002-C.E., because clause (g) deemed such clearances to be without payment of duty. The exported goods, though invoiced as duty-paid, therefore failed the statutory condition that rebate is available only for export of duty-paid goods. The distinction drawn from cases under the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 was found inapplicable because the dispute turned on the express wording of the notification. The revision was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and rejection of the rebate claims was restored. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 17 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221374