https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125866 Refund of unutilized deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002 required contemporaneous evidence that drawback under the Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1995 was not being claimed on the exported goods. The ARE-1 endorsement at the time of clearance was the prescribed declaration for verification, and a later letter could not cure its absence. As the claimant bore the burden of proving eligibility and the declaration was missing when the export was made through merchant exporters, the refund was treated as inadmissible and rejection was upheld. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Oct 2012 18:33:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125866 Refund of unutilized deemed credit under Notification No. 6/2002 required contemporaneous evidence that drawback under the Customs and Central Excise Duties (Drawback) Rules, 1995 was not being claimed on the exported goods. The ARE-1 endorsement at the time of clearance was the prescribed declaration for verification, and a later letter could not cure its absence. As the claimant bore the burden of proving eligibility and the declaration was missing when the export was made through merchant exporters, the refund was treated as inadmissible and rejection was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=125866