Duty rebate cannot be denied for missing export invoice where duty-paid goods were actually exported under the rebate scheme.

Rebate of duty could not be denied merely because the export invoice was not filed with the claim where the goods were admittedly exported on payment of duty. Non-submission of the invoice was only a procedural breach under the Central Excise Rules and did not disprove duty payment. The decisive requirement under the rebate scheme was export of duty-paid goods under ARE-1, and that condition was satisfied on the record. A departmental manual could not override Rule 18 or the notification issued under it, so the invoice lapse was insufficient to refuse rebate.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of duty could be denied merely because the export invoice was not submitted along with the claim, when the goods had admittedly been exported on payment of duty.

Analysis: Non-issuance or non-submission of the invoice was treated as a breach of the Central Excise Rules, but it was not regarded as conclusive proof that duty had not been paid. The governing condition for rebate under the statutory scheme was actual export of duty-paid goods under ARE-1, and that requirement stood satisfied on the record. The requirement of enclosing the invoice in the departmental manual was only a guiding instruction for officers and could not override Rule 18 or the notification issued under it. Since the export on payment of duty was not disputed and no non-compliance with the notification was shown, the invoice lapse could not justify denial of rebate.

Conclusion: Rebate of duty could not be denied on the ground of non-submission of the invoice, and the assessee was entitled to the rebate.

---