https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92683 HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the respondent's and CESTAT's decisions, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the notification's procedural deadline for claiming fixation of the special rebate for FY 2009-10 and thus cannot obtain relief. The court found no provision in N/N.20/2007-CE making issuance of an Eligibility Certificate a precondition to claim the special rebate; consequently the appellant's contention that the respondent's certificate was prerequisite was rejected. Although the respondent had earlier indicated potential eligibility, the appellant did not file the requisite application by 30 September 2009 (nor within the 30-day condonation), and there was no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. en-us Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:47 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92683 HC dismissed the appeal and affirmed the respondent's and CESTAT's decisions, holding that the appellant failed to comply with the notification's procedural deadline for claiming fixation of the special rebate for FY 2009-10 and thus cannot obtain relief. The court found no provision in N/N.20/2007-CE making issuance of an Eligibility Certificate a precondition to claim the special rebate; consequently the appellant's contention that the respondent's certificate was prerequisite was rejected. Although the respondent had earlier indicated potential eligibility, the appellant did not file the requisite application by 30 September 2009 (nor within the 30-day condonation), and there was no ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Highlights Central Excise Sat, 20 Sep 2025 08:38:47 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92683