https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758071 Applications for fixation of special rate under the amended excise exemption regime could not be rejected on the basis of the authority's incorrect limitation , because the relevant amendments had been under challenge, the legal position crystallised only after the Supreme Court upheld them, and Covid-19 limitation exclusion directions had to be considered. The Court found the delay to be only 27 days, noted that the applications were connected to earlier refund claims, and held that the authority failed to examine the effect of the pandemic-related exclusion. Rejection on a technical limitation ground, despite no dispute on refund eligibility, justified interference under Article 226. The impugned orders were quashed and the applications were directed to be treated as timely and decided afresh on merits. en-us Sat, 31 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758071 Applications for fixation of special rate under the amended excise exemption regime could not be rejected on the basis of the authority's incorrect limitation , because the relevant amendments had been under challenge, the legal position crystallised only after the Supreme Court upheld them, and Covid-19 limitation exclusion directions had to be considered. The Court found the delay to be only 27 days, noted that the applications were connected to earlier refund claims, and held that the authority failed to examine the effect of the pandemic-related exclusion. Rejection on a technical limitation ground, despite no dispute on refund eligibility, justified interference under Article 226. The impugned orders were quashed and the applications were directed to be treated as timely and decided afresh on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 31 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758071