https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211222 Rebate under Rule 18 cannot be denied merely because Cenvat credit was initially taken if the credit was later reversed and no prohibited double benefit remained. The operative distinction is between mere availment of credit and actual retention or use of that credit; once reversed, the objection is neutralised and rebate remains available. Procedural defects in export documentation, including use of ARE-1 instead of ARE-2, do not defeat the claim where export, movement of goods, and realization of proceeds are otherwise established. The substantial compliance principle applies, so technical lapses are not fatal when the substantive conditions for export rebate are met. en-us Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211222 Rebate under Rule 18 cannot be denied merely because Cenvat credit was initially taken if the credit was later reversed and no prohibited double benefit remained. The operative distinction is between mere availment of credit and actual retention or use of that credit; once reversed, the objection is neutralised and rebate remains available. Procedural defects in export documentation, including use of ARE-1 instead of ARE-2, do not defeat the claim where export, movement of goods, and realization of proceeds are otherwise established. The substantial compliance principle applies, so technical lapses are not fatal when the substantive conditions for export rebate are met. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211222