https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213681 Rebate of duty under the export rebate procedure could be denied where the exporter failed to produce the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms and could not establish compliance with the prescribed examination, sealing, endorsement and transmission requirements. The prescribed procedure under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as a mandatory statutory condition, not a mere technical formality, because it serves to establish the duty-paid character and identity of the exported goods. Photocopies were held insufficient to replace the missing original statutory document for this purpose, so the rebate claim was not allowable. en-us Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 18:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213681 Rebate of duty under the export rebate procedure could be denied where the exporter failed to produce the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms and could not establish compliance with the prescribed examination, sealing, endorsement and transmission requirements. The prescribed procedure under Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was treated as a mandatory statutory condition, not a mere technical formality, because it serves to establish the duty-paid character and identity of the exported goods. Photocopies were held insufficient to replace the missing original statutory document for this purpose, so the rebate claim was not allowable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213681