Export clearances proved by documentary evidence; procedural absence of AR-4 forms could not defeat exemption benefit.

The disputed clearances were accepted as export clearances because the appellants produced shipping bills, invoices, customs export certificates, sales tax forms and other corroborative documents showing manufacture and export of the goods. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had failed to examine and co-relate the evidence as directed on remand, and that the absence of AR-4 forms did not override the documentary proof of export. The procedural objection could not defeat the substantive evidence on record, so the export clearances were allowed and the benefit of Notification No. 105/80 was available. The duty demand was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to deduction of the disputed clearances as export clearances and, consequently, to the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 105/80 dated 19-6-1980.

Analysis: The dispute concerned only three consignments. The appellants produced shipping bills, invoices, customs export certificates, sales tax forms and other collateral material to establish that the goods had been manufactured by them and exported. The lower authorities had repeatedly failed to examine and co-relate the evidence in the manner directed on remand, and their insistence on the absence of AR-4 forms did not displace the documentary proof of export. On the materials before it, the Tribunal was satisfied that the disputed goods had in fact been manufactured and exported, and that the export clearances could not be denied on the procedural objection raised by the department.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to treat the disputed clearances as export clearances and to claim the benefit of the exemption notification. The duty demand could not be sustained.

---