https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789446 Where rebate claims on exports made on payment of duty were rejected as time-barred, the Bombay HC noted that any alternative claim for return of excess duty under the transitional mechanism was not part of the proceedings leading to the impugned orders. It held that such entitlement had to be specifically asserted through a substantive application before the designated officer under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, rather than sought directly in writ proceedings. The court therefore declined direct writ relief for cash re-credit and directed the petitioners to pursue the statutory route for consideration of the claimed refund or re-credit. en-us Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789446 Where rebate claims on exports made on payment of duty were rejected as time-barred, the Bombay HC noted that any alternative claim for return of excess duty under the transitional mechanism was not part of the proceedings leading to the impugned orders. It held that such entitlement had to be specifically asserted through a substantive application before the designated officer under Section 142(3) of the CGST Act, 2017, rather than sought directly in writ proceedings. The court therefore declined direct writ relief for cash re-credit and directed the petitioners to pursue the statutory route for consideration of the claimed refund or re-credit. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789446