https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216498 Where contemporaneous records such as ARE-1 forms, invoices, shipping bills and customs endorsements established actual export of the same duty-paid goods, denial of export duty benefit was unjustified merely because the CT-I certificates and bond were not in the merchant exporter's name. The omission was treated as a minor procedural lapse that did not affect proof of export, and the substantive export relief was allowed because the underlying conditions were otherwise satisfied. Beneficial export provisions should not be read so rigidly as to defeat relief on technical documentation defects when export is duly established. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Sep 2012 16:52:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216498 Where contemporaneous records such as ARE-1 forms, invoices, shipping bills and customs endorsements established actual export of the same duty-paid goods, denial of export duty benefit was unjustified merely because the CT-I certificates and bond were not in the merchant exporter's name. The omission was treated as a minor procedural lapse that did not affect proof of export, and the substantive export relief was allowed because the underlying conditions were otherwise satisfied. Beneficial export provisions should not be read so rigidly as to defeat relief on technical documentation defects when export is duly established. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=216498