https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255695 The Central Government allowed the revision application, setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal and ruling in favor of the applicant. The Government emphasized that minor procedural errors, such as a mistaken declaration on the ARE-1 form, should not invalidate substantial rebate claims when there is evidence of substantial compliance with notifications and rules. The case involved disputes over rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, export of goods under rebate claims, and time-barred appeals, with the Government ultimately supporting the applicant's position. en-us Fri, 02 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255695 The Central Government allowed the revision application, setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal and ruling in favor of the applicant. The Government emphasized that minor procedural errors, such as a mistaken declaration on the ARE-1 form, should not invalidate substantial rebate claims when there is evidence of substantial compliance with notifications and rules. The case involved disputes over rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, export of goods under rebate claims, and time-barred appeals, with the Government ultimately supporting the applicant's position. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 02 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=255695