Procedural lapse in ARE-I filing did not defeat refund where export was otherwise fully established.

Refund under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied where export was otherwise fully established by shipping bill endorsement, package list, air way bill and export invoice. The failure to file ARE-I was treated as a procedural requirement, not a substantive bar to refund. In the absence of fraud or any allegation that the goods were not exported, the omission was condonable and did not defeat the export benefit. The note concludes that the substantive refund claim remained available despite the procedural lapse.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund could be denied for non-submission of ARE-I when export of goods was otherwise established and the omission was only a procedural lapse.

Analysis: The export was not in dispute and the supporting documents, including shipping bill endorsement, package list, air way bill and export invoice, were sufficient to establish actual export. The omission to file goods in ARE-I format was treated as a procedural requirement under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001. In the absence of fraud or any allegation that the goods were not exported, the procedural lapse was held to be condonable so that the substantive refund benefit was not lost.

Conclusion: The non-submission of ARE-I was a condonable procedural lapse, and the appellant was entitled to refund of Rs. 1,70,444/-.

---