https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85440 Refund of credit on inputs used in goods exported under bond could not be denied merely because AR 4/AR 4A forms were absent. Where shipping bills, bills of lading, GP 2s and bank certificates established export, Notification No. 85/77-C.E. and Rule 57F(3) treated such documents as sufficient evidence of export. The appellate authority could therefore recognise the refund as admissible when the underlying credit was otherwise allowable, with actual sanction to follow by the proper officer. The document rejects insistence on AR 4/AR 4A as a mandatory proof requirement in these circumstances. en-us Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2011 10:56:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85440 Refund of credit on inputs used in goods exported under bond could not be denied merely because AR 4/AR 4A forms were absent. Where shipping bills, bills of lading, GP 2s and bank certificates established export, Notification No. 85/77-C.E. and Rule 57F(3) treated such documents as sufficient evidence of export. The appellate authority could therefore recognise the refund as admissible when the underlying credit was otherwise allowable, with actual sanction to follow by the proper officer. The document rejects insistence on AR 4/AR 4A as a mandatory proof requirement in these circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=85440