https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255563 The Government partially allowed the revision applications, modifying the impugned orders. Rebate claims initially filed within one year were considered timely and sanctioned. Interest on delayed payments was granted in accordance with legal provisions. The rejection of rebate claims based on non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 was upheld, as the necessary guidelines were not followed. The claims were not considered time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. en-us Tue, 20 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255563 The Government partially allowed the revision applications, modifying the impugned orders. Rebate claims initially filed within one year were considered timely and sanctioned. Interest on delayed payments was granted in accordance with legal provisions. The rejection of rebate claims based on non-filing of original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 was upheld, as the necessary guidelines were not followed. The claims were not considered time-barred under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 20 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255563