<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (7) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32111</link>
    <description>Rebate claims under the Central Excise law are not to be rejected as time-barred where the exporter could not file them within one year because the endorsed shipping bill, required as a supporting document, was not made available by the Customs or Excise Department. Section 11B requires timely filing with prescribed documents, but the CBEC Manual recognises that an incomplete claim may still be admitted when the missing document is unavailable for reasons attributable solely to the department. The operative question is whether the delay resulted from the department&#039;s lapse rather than any fault of the claimant; in that situation, limitation should not be applied rigidly and the rebate claim must be examined afresh in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (7) TMI 228 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32111</link>
      <description>Rebate claims under the Central Excise law are not to be rejected as time-barred where the exporter could not file them within one year because the endorsed shipping bill, required as a supporting document, was not made available by the Customs or Excise Department. Section 11B requires timely filing with prescribed documents, but the CBEC Manual recognises that an incomplete claim may still be admitted when the missing document is unavailable for reasons attributable solely to the department. The operative question is whether the delay resulted from the department&#039;s lapse rather than any fault of the claimant; in that situation, limitation should not be applied rigidly and the rebate claim must be examined afresh in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=32111</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>