Rebate claim on export documents required fresh scrutiny where the original AR4 and supporting explanation were not examined

A rebate claim could not be rejected solely for non-production of the duplicate AR4 and connected export documents where the appellant stated that the duplicate AR4 and shipping bill had been filed before the DGFT and the original AR4 had been submitted to the authorities. As the record showed that the claim had not been examined against the original AR4 and the appellant's explanation, fresh scrutiny was required. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rebate claim could be rejected for non-production of the duplicate copy of AR4 and connected export documents, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The appellant asserted that the duplicate AR4 and shipping bill were not available because they had been filed before the DGFT, and that the original AR4 had been submitted before the authorities. The record referred to by the appellant indicated that the claim had not been examined with reference to the original AR4 and the supporting explanation. In these circumstances, the claim warranted fresh scrutiny by the original adjudicating authority after allowing the appellant to place the necessary evidence.

Outcome: The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

---