https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124077 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the Tribunal found that the original and duplicate copies of the AR-4 form were sent to the range Superintendent, indicating the export of goods. Despite lower authorities' doubts, the Tribunal held that proof of export through alternative documents sufficed, and since there was no evidence to the contrary, the duty confirmation was set aside. The judgment highlights the importance of considering all relevant documents in assessing proof of export and upholds the principle that the absence of the original AR-4 form does not automatically invalidate the export claim when supported by other documentation. en-us Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jun 2020 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124077 The appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant as the Tribunal found that the original and duplicate copies of the AR-4 form were sent to the range Superintendent, indicating the export of goods. Despite lower authorities' doubts, the Tribunal held that proof of export through alternative documents sufficed, and since there was no evidence to the contrary, the duty confirmation was set aside. The judgment highlights the importance of considering all relevant documents in assessing proof of export and upholds the principle that the absence of the original AR-4 form does not automatically invalidate the export claim when supported by other documentation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124077