https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254526 The revision applications were filed against orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs regarding rebate claims. The rejection of the rebate claim in both cases was primarily due to the non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-2 forms, as required by Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the rejection, emphasizing the importance of direct procurement from manufacturers for availing specific rebates under notifications. The Government decision provided clarity on fulfilling all conditions stipulated in notifications for successful rebate claims, setting aside one order-in-appeal for reconsideration and upholding the other due to failure to demonstrate direct procurement. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254526 The revision applications were filed against orders-in-appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs regarding rebate claims. The rejection of the rebate claim in both cases was primarily due to the non-submission of original/duplicate copies of ARE-2 forms, as required by Notification No.21/2004-CE(NT) dated 06.09.2004. The Commissioner of Appeals upheld the rejection, emphasizing the importance of direct procurement from manufacturers for availing specific rebates under notifications. The Government decision provided clarity on fulfilling all conditions stipulated in notifications for successful rebate claims, setting aside one order-in-appeal for reconsideration and upholding the other due to failure to demonstrate direct procurement. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254526