https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335309 The appeals challenging the sanctioning of rebate claims on inputs cleared to the SEZ unit were allowed in favor of the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rebate claims, emphasizing the distinction between credit utilization and duty payment required for claiming rebates under Rule 18 of CER, 2002. Regarding discrepancies in export documentation for refund claims, the appellant's request for a remand for a merit-based decision was not supported, and the matter was remanded back for further consideration to clarify the interpretation of Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(6) of CCR 2004. en-us Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Nov 2016 11:58:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335309 The appeals challenging the sanctioning of rebate claims on inputs cleared to the SEZ unit were allowed in favor of the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rebate claims, emphasizing the distinction between credit utilization and duty payment required for claiming rebates under Rule 18 of CER, 2002. Regarding discrepancies in export documentation for refund claims, the appellant's request for a remand for a merit-based decision was not supported, and the matter was remanded back for further consideration to clarify the interpretation of Rule 3(5) and Rule 3(6) of CCR 2004. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335309