https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243125 The court held that the notification dated 06.09.2004 mandates strict compliance with the procedure for filing ARE-I forms under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner's procedural non-compliance in claiming rebates for exported goods was deemed unacceptable, leading to the rejection of rebate claims. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedure to prevent fraudulent claims and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, affirming the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for rebate claims. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243125 The court held that the notification dated 06.09.2004 mandates strict compliance with the procedure for filing ARE-I forms under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner's procedural non-compliance in claiming rebates for exported goods was deemed unacceptable, leading to the rejection of rebate claims. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedure to prevent fraudulent claims and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, affirming the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures for rebate claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=243125