https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234735 Export benefit was denied because the mandatory export procedure was not complied with: no ARE-1 was prepared, and the prescribed sealing, examination, and endorsement formalities under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) were not followed. The record also failed to establish identity between the goods cleared from the factory and the goods exported, and the mismatch between the shipping bill and invoice descriptions further undermined the claim. In the absence of a legally acceptable substitute document, export was not proved and the rejection of the revision was justified. en-us Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2013 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234735 Export benefit was denied because the mandatory export procedure was not complied with: no ARE-1 was prepared, and the prescribed sealing, examination, and endorsement formalities under Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 19/2004-C.E. (N.T.) were not followed. The record also failed to establish identity between the goods cleared from the factory and the goods exported, and the mismatch between the shipping bill and invoice descriptions further undermined the claim. In the absence of a legally acceptable substitute document, export was not proved and the rejection of the revision was justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234735