https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98934 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. en-us Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:25:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98934 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98934