TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....J Oza, Adv ORDER ( Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi ) 1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.09.2013 passed by the Government of India, copy of which is produced at Annexure-I to the petition, in following background:- 1.1 Petitioner is a manufacturer exporter. Petitioner had exported various goods so manufactured by it after payment of duty, of which the petitioner was entit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The issue finally reached the Government of India. By the revisional order, impugned in this petition, the decisions of the authorities were affirmed. Hence, this petition. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Gupta for the petitioner raised twofold contentions. Firstly he contended that the petitioner filed rebate claims well in time. Only error was to file them in wrong format. In any case, the Rules do no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected by the Department as time barred. 5. Admitted facts are that the petitioner had made necessary declarations in format of Annexure-19 which is prescribed under Rule 19 of the said Rules. Along with it, the petitioner had also supplied documents of proof of export and for that rebate would be made. We notice that Rule 18 of the said Rules pertains to rebate of duty and provides for rebate cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, should have treated the original applications /declarations of the petitioner as rebate claims. Whatever defect, could have been asked to be cured. When the petitioner re-presented such rebate applications in correct form, backed by necessary documents, the same should have been seen as a continuous attempt on part of the petitioner to seek rebate. Thus seen, it would relate back to the origi....