https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328648 Delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar the challenge because the petitioners had waited for implementation of the remand order while the authorities themselves failed to conclude the matter. A rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 had to be decided on the law and facts existing at the relevant time, and could not be kept pending or made contingent on the outcome of separate DGCEI investigation and classification proceedings. The contingent directions in the revisional order were therefore invalid, and the rebate claims had to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law on the available material. en-us Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328648 Delay, laches, acquiescence and estoppel did not bar the challenge because the petitioners had waited for implementation of the remand order while the authorities themselves failed to conclude the matter. A rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 had to be decided on the law and facts existing at the relevant time, and could not be kept pending or made contingent on the outcome of separate DGCEI investigation and classification proceedings. The contingent directions in the revisional order were therefore invalid, and the rebate claims had to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law on the available material. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=328648