Rebate under Central Excise rules cannot be denied for missing ARE-1 copies when exports of duty-paid goods are otherwise proven.

Rule 18 rebate entitlement depends on substantive compliance with the duty-paid export conditions, while the prescribed documentary steps are procedural. The requirement to produce the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms is meant to facilitate verification, but it is not the only mode of proof. Where contemporaneous documents such as shipping bills, bills of lading, mate receipts and the triplicate ARE-1 establish export of duty-paid goods directly from the factory, rebate cannot be denied merely for non-production of the original and duplicate ARE-1 copies. The document concludes that such non-production is a procedural lapse, not a substantive bar to rebate.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be denied solely because the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 were not produced along with the rebate claim, when the export of duty-paid goods was otherwise established by contemporaneous supporting documents.

Analysis: Rule 18 permits rebate subject to conditions or limitations specified in the notification and to fulfillment of the prescribed procedure. The conditions governing entitlement to rebate are substantive, while the documentary steps prescribed for processing the claim are procedural. The requirement to file the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 is intended to facilitate verification of export and duty-paid character of the goods, but it is not the only means of proof. Where the exporter produces other reliable documents such as shipping bills, bills of lading, mate receipts and the triplicate ARE-1, and those documents establish that the goods were exported on payment of duty directly from the factory, the rebate claim cannot be rejected merely for non-production of the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms. On the facts, the finding that the exports actually took place and that the goods were duty paid was not disturbed.

Conclusion: Non-production of the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms was held to be a procedural lapse and not a substantive bar to rebate; the rebate claims were allowed.

---