https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155806 The Commissioner allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order rejecting the rebate claims. The Commissioner concluded that proof of export and duty payment from other documents could justify condoning non-submission of ARE-1s. The appellant's submission of shipping bills, airway bills, and central excise invoices as evidence of export, along with the Commissioner's recognition of the appellant's regular export practices and previous successful rebate claims, led to the decision in favor of the appellant. The Commissioner emphasized that procedural requirements should not hinder rebate claims, highlighting the substantial benefit to the appellant from exporting goods. en-us Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 May 2017 09:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155806 The Commissioner allowed the appeal, setting aside the earlier order rejecting the rebate claims. The Commissioner concluded that proof of export and duty payment from other documents could justify condoning non-submission of ARE-1s. The appellant's submission of shipping bills, airway bills, and central excise invoices as evidence of export, along with the Commissioner's recognition of the appellant's regular export practices and previous successful rebate claims, led to the decision in favor of the appellant. The Commissioner emphasized that procedural requirements should not hinder rebate claims, highlighting the substantial benefit to the appellant from exporting goods. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=155806