Export refund claims cannot be rejected for old-name invoices alone; substantive notification conditions still require verification.

A refund claim under an export refund notification could not be denied solely because the shipping bill and invoices bore the exporter's former name, where a fresh certificate of incorporation showed that the name change related to the same legal entity. The mismatch in names was therefore not, by itself, a valid ground to reject the claim. However, the record did not contain any finding on whether the substantive conditions of the notification had been satisfied, so admissibility of the refund had to be examined afresh on remand in accordance with those conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund under the export refund notification could be rejected merely because the shipping bill and invoices were in the old name of the exporter, and whether the claim should be remanded for verification of compliance with the notification conditions.

Analysis: A fresh certificate of incorporation showed that the earlier company name had been changed to the present name with effect from 01.10.2013, so the two names referred to the same legal entity. On that basis, the refund claim could not be denied only because the documents bore the former name while the application was filed in the changed name. However, the record did not contain any report or finding on whether the substantive conditions of the notification governing the refund claim had been satisfied.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund on the ground of mismatch of names was set aside, but the matter was remanded to the original authority to examine admissibility of the refund in accordance with the notification conditions.

---