CENVAT refund cannot be denied for missing ARE-1 when export is proved by other supporting documents.

Refund of CENVAT credit for inputs used in exported goods could not be denied solely because ARE-1 was not produced when the exporter furnished shipping bills, bills of lading and bank realisation certificates establishing export. The prescribed refund procedure under Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. required supporting export evidence, but the available documents were sufficient to verify actual export and the claim could not be rejected on a purely technical omission if otherwise admissible. The refund rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority after hearing the exporter.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of CENVAT credit could be denied solely for non-production of ARE-1 when the exporter had produced other documents evidencing export of the goods.

Analysis: Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. prescribed the procedure for refund of credit on inputs used in the manufacture of goods cleared for export and required supporting export documents. The appellant had produced the shipping bill, bill of lading and bank realisation certificate, which were sufficient to verify whether the goods manufactured by it had in fact been exported. On that basis, refund could not be refused merely for want of ARE-1 if the claim was otherwise admissible.

Conclusion: The rejection of refund was unsustainable and the matter required reconsideration by the adjudicating authority after hearing the appellant.

---