Export rebate requires proof of co-relation between duty-paid goods and exports; concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

Rebate on exported excisable goods was held unavailable where the exporter failed to prove clear correlation between the duty-paid goods and the exported goods, despite reliance on relaxed procedural requirements under the relevant excise notification and rules. The authorities found that non-preparation of AR-4 and other deviations could not cure the absence of identity and co-relation, so the rebate claim was rejected. Concurrent factual findings on lack of correlation were not interfered with in writ jurisdiction because no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown. The result was that the rebate rejection was sustained and the writ petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether rebate on exported excisable goods could be granted despite non-preparation of AR-4 and other procedural deviations when correlation between duty-paid goods and exported goods was not established; (ii) whether concurrent factual findings rejecting such correlation could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether rebate on exported excisable goods could be granted despite non-preparation of AR-4 and other procedural deviations when correlation between duty-paid goods and exported goods was not established.

Analysis: The rebate claim was examined in the light of Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Rule 12(1)(a) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and Notification No. 31/98-C.E. (N.T.) dated 24-8-1998. The notification relaxed certain conditions only where the exporter produced proof of actual export and the goods were clearly identifiable and co-relatable with the goods cleared on payment of duty. On the facts recorded by the authorities, the petitioner failed to establish such correlation, and the mandatory procedural requirement could not be treated as satisfied.

Conclusion: The rebate claim was not sustainable and was rightly rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether concurrent factual findings rejecting such correlation could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: All three authorities below recorded a concurrent finding that the petitioner had not proved co-relation between the duty-paid goods and the exported goods. Such a finding was one of fact, and no perversity or jurisdictional error was shown to warrant interference in extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The concurrent findings were not liable to be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed because the petitioner did not establish the necessary identity and correlation between the duty-paid goods and the exported goods, and the factual findings rejecting the rebate claim were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Rebate on export is not available unless the exporter proves actual export and clear co-relation between the duty-paid goods and the exported goods, and concurrent factual findings on that issue will not ordinarily be disturbed in writ jurisdiction absent perversity.

---