https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266048 A rebate claim under Notification No. 41/2007 was found to have been filed within the prescribed time, because the Range Officer's report and the departmental correspondence confirmed timely filing. The objection that the claim lacked the receiving officer's name or stamp was rejected as unsupported by the record. On the available material, limitation was proved in favour of the claimant, and the rejection of the rebate claim as time-barred was set aside. en-us Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:12:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266048 A rebate claim under Notification No. 41/2007 was found to have been filed within the prescribed time, because the Range Officer's report and the departmental correspondence confirmed timely filing. The objection that the claim lacked the receiving officer's name or stamp was rejected as unsupported by the record. On the available material, limitation was proved in favour of the claimant, and the rejection of the rebate claim as time-barred was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266048