Export rebate cannot be denied for curable documentation defects where duty-paid inputs and export linkage are otherwise established.

Rebate of input-stage duty on exported goods cannot be denied merely because exports were routed through a merchant-exporter, where the manufacturer/export linkage is established. Omission to mention the merchant-exporter's name on AR-5/ARE-2 forms and the absence of an endorsement of the disclaimer certificate were treated as curable procedural defects, especially where separate disclaimer certificates existed and no endorsement column was prescribed. An isolated invoice description mismatch was also insufficient to defeat rebate because the record showed continuous processing, excise supervision, and a consistent documentary chain linking the duty-paid fabric to the exported made-ups. The rebate benefit was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of input stage duty on exported goods could be denied on the grounds that the goods were exported through a merchant-exporter, the disclaimer certificate was not endorsed on the export documents, the merchant-exporter's name was not mentioned on the AR-5/ARE-2 forms, and one invoice showed a description mismatch between the input fabric and the exported made-ups.

Analysis: Rebate under the export rebate scheme is intended to relieve duty on exported goods, and the benefit is not defeated merely because export is routed through a merchant-exporter, provided the manufacturer/processor and export linkage are established. The documentary omission of the merchant-exporter's name on AR-5/ARE-2 and the absence of the disclaimer on the face of the form were treated as procedural matters, particularly where separate disclaimer certificates existed and no column was prescribed for such endorsement. The isolated objection regarding one invoice was not accepted because the surrounding record showed continuous processing, supervisory control by excise officers, and a consistent chain of documents indicating that the duty-paid fabric was used in the export goods.

Conclusion: The rebate could not be denied on these grounds, and the assessee was entitled to retain the rebate benefit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where export of duty-paid inputs into exported goods is established, substantive rebate cannot be denied for curable procedural irregularities or for routing exports through a merchant-exporter, if the statutory conditions and documentary linkage are otherwise satisfied.

---