https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258015 The applicants' rebate claims for Central Excise duty were partially rejected due to non-submission of original ARE-2 forms, despite providing photocopies. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to revision applications. The applicants argued compliance with procedural requirements, emphasizing substantive benefit over procedural lapses. The Government found the rebate claims valid based on evidence of export and duty-paid status, directing sanction of the claims. The impugned orders were modified, allowing the revision applications. en-us Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2015 12:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258015 The applicants' rebate claims for Central Excise duty were partially rejected due to non-submission of original ARE-2 forms, despite providing photocopies. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to revision applications. The applicants argued compliance with procedural requirements, emphasizing substantive benefit over procedural lapses. The Government found the rebate claims valid based on evidence of export and duty-paid status, directing sanction of the claims. The impugned orders were modified, allowing the revision applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 17 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258015