https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255433 The case involved issues regarding the non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms for a rebate claim. The original authority rejected the claim, leading to appeals and a revision application. The Government, citing a Bombay High Court judgment, held that procedural requirements are directory, and the non-production of ARE-1 forms does not invalidate a claim if compliance is shown through other evidence. Consequently, the Government set aside the previous decision, remanded the case for reconsideration based on submitted documents, and directed a fresh hearing by the original authority. en-us Fri, 02 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255433 The case involved issues regarding the non-submission of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 forms for a rebate claim. The original authority rejected the claim, leading to appeals and a revision application. The Government, citing a Bombay High Court judgment, held that procedural requirements are directory, and the non-production of ARE-1 forms does not invalidate a claim if compliance is shown through other evidence. Consequently, the Government set aside the previous decision, remanded the case for reconsideration based on submitted documents, and directed a fresh hearing by the original authority. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255433