https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330268 The government rejected the revision application as time-barred under Section 35 EE (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed beyond the stipulated three-month period. Despite citing postal delay and workload as reasons, the applicant failed to provide evidence. The claim for rebate was rejected initially due to simultaneous claims of input credit and drawback, deemed inadmissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on availing only the customs portion of drawback, making the rebate claim admissible. The government emphasized adherence to statutory timelines for filing applications. en-us Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2016 00:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330268 The government rejected the revision application as time-barred under Section 35 EE (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed beyond the stipulated three-month period. Despite citing postal delay and workload as reasons, the applicant failed to provide evidence. The claim for rebate was rejected initially due to simultaneous claims of input credit and drawback, deemed inadmissible. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal based on availing only the customs portion of drawback, making the rebate claim admissible. The government emphasized adherence to statutory timelines for filing applications. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330268