Mandatory ARE-1 export procedure governs rebate of duty, and missing originals can defeat the claim.

Rebate of duty under the export rebate procedure could be denied where the exporter failed to produce the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms and could not establish compliance with the prescribed examination, sealing, endorsement and transmission requirements. The prescribed procedure under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as a mandatory statutory condition, not a mere technical formality, because it serves to establish the duty-paid character and identity of the exported goods. Photocopies were held insufficient to replace the missing original statutory document for this purpose, so the rebate claim was not allowable.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of duty could be denied for non-production of the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms and non-compliance with the prescribed export procedure under the relevant rebate notification.

Analysis: The rebate claim was founded on export of excisable goods, but the prescribed procedure under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 required export on ARE-1 and adherence to the stated examination, sealing, endorsement, and transmission process. The absence of the original ARE-1 and the failure to establish compliance with the basic export procedure meant that the duty-paid character of the goods and the identity of the exported goods could not be satisfactorily established. The requirement was treated as a statutory and mandatory condition, not a mere technical formality. The evidentiary objection based on photocopies was also accepted as supporting the conclusion that secondary material could not substitute the missing original statutory document for this purpose.

Conclusion: The rebate claim was not allowable and the rejection was upheld.

---