Export rebate remains available despite merchant exporter routing and technical form defects where duty-paid inputs are proved used.

Rebate of input-stage duty on export goods was treated as available where duty-paid inputs were shown to have been used in manufacture or processing for export, even if the goods were routed through a merchant exporter. Non-mention of the merchant exporter's name on the export form and absence of a disclaimer endorsement were treated as procedural defects, not grounds to deny the claim, where duty payment and export were otherwise established. A single invoice description discrepancy in the input fabric was also held insufficient to defeat rebate when the surrounding records consistently supported the use of the correct duty-paid inputs. The substantive export rebate claim was therefore upheld despite technical objections.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether rebate of input stage duty could be denied on the ground that the claimant exported the goods through a merchant exporter and was not the sole exporter, (ii) whether non-mention of the merchant exporter's name on the AR-5/ARE-2 and the absence of the disclaimer on the face of the form defeated the rebate claim, and (iii) whether a discrepancy in one invoice description of the input fabric was sufficient to reject the rebate claim.

Issue (i): Whether rebate of input stage duty could be denied on the ground that the claimant exported the goods through a merchant exporter and was not the sole exporter.

Analysis: The claim concerned goods manufactured or processed on the claimant's account and cleared under the prescribed export procedure. The relevant circular recognised that rebate of input duty is available to the manufacturer-processor exporter or the merchant exporter, as the case may be, where the inputs are used in the manufacture or processing of export goods and the goods are cleared directly from the factory of the manufacturer or processor. The fact that exports were routed through a merchant exporter did not by itself disqualify the claimant when the factual record showed manufacture/processing on its behalf and export of the goods.

Conclusion: Rebate could not be denied merely because the goods were exported through a merchant exporter; the claim was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether non-mention of the merchant exporter's name on the AR-5/ARE-2 and the absence of the disclaimer on the face of the form defeated the rebate claim.

Analysis: The omission was treated as procedural. The authority accepted that separate disclaimer certificates had been issued and relied on the settled position that rebate is not to be denied where duty payment and export are not in dispute merely because the disclaimer is not endorsed on the export form itself. The absence of a separate column for disclaimer on the form also supported the view that the defect was technical and not substantive.

Conclusion: The omission was only a procedural lapse and did not invalidate the rebate claim.

Issue (iii): Whether a discrepancy in one invoice description of the input fabric was sufficient to reject the rebate claim.

Analysis: The objection related only to one claim and one invoice, where the description was read as "shirting" instead of "sheeting". On the record, the broader export chain, duty payment, processing, and supervision by Central Excise officers were established. The authority accepted that the disputed description was a handwriting issue and that the surrounding documents consistently showed the fabric as sheeting. In those circumstances, the isolated discrepancy did not disprove use of the duty-paid inputs in the exported goods.

Conclusion: The single invoice discrepancy did not warrant denial of rebate.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, the appellate order granting rebate was maintained with limited directions, and the substantive export rebate claim was upheld despite the procedural objections.

Ratio Decidendi: Rebate of duty on export goods cannot be denied when the duty-paid inputs are shown to have been used in the manufacture or processing of exported goods, and mere procedural defects such as omission of endorsements or non-material description discrepancies do not defeat the substantive entitlement.

---