https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235174 Rebate of duty should not be denied merely because export was not made directly from the factory of manufacture or an approved warehouse, where the prescribed export procedure was substantially followed. The authority accepted that duty payment particulars were verified by Central Excise officers and that the export was supported by consignment notes, NOC, ARE-1 forms, invoices and returns. It also held that procedural defects and the absence of identification marks or batch numbers did not defeat the claim when the documentary chain and departmental verification established correlation between the cleared and exported goods. Substantive compliance was treated as sufficient, and the rebate claim was sustained. en-us Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2013 15:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235174 Rebate of duty should not be denied merely because export was not made directly from the factory of manufacture or an approved warehouse, where the prescribed export procedure was substantially followed. The authority accepted that duty payment particulars were verified by Central Excise officers and that the export was supported by consignment notes, NOC, ARE-1 forms, invoices and returns. It also held that procedural defects and the absence of identification marks or batch numbers did not defeat the claim when the documentary chain and departmental verification established correlation between the cleared and exported goods. Substantive compliance was treated as sufficient, and the rebate claim was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 30 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235174