https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359077 Brand rate drawback claims were held not to be time barred because they were filed within the prescribed period, including the condonable period, and the supporting documents were ultimately produced. The objection based on delayed submission of documents and the absence of excise invoices was rejected, as the record did not justify denial merely because commercial invoices had been relied on. A later Board circular extending the time limit was treated as beneficial and applicable to pending claims, so the retrospective application was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359077 Brand rate drawback claims were held not to be time barred because they were filed within the prescribed period, including the condonable period, and the supporting documents were ultimately produced. The objection based on delayed submission of documents and the absence of excise invoices was rejected, as the record did not justify denial merely because commercial invoices had been relied on. A later Board circular extending the time limit was treated as beneficial and applicable to pending claims, so the retrospective application was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 12 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=359077