https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236283 Procedural lapses in export rebate documentation and a mismatch in classification between shipping bills and excise invoices were treated as curable where actual export was verifiable from ARE-1 forms and shipping bills, so rebate could not be denied on that basis. An amount paid under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules on exempted goods was not treated as duty of excise for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, so rebate on that amount was inadmissible. The amount was, however, treated as a deposit made without authority of law, and re-credit in the Cenvat account was permitted. en-us Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:50:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236283 Procedural lapses in export rebate documentation and a mismatch in classification between shipping bills and excise invoices were treated as curable where actual export was verifiable from ARE-1 forms and shipping bills, so rebate could not be denied on that basis. An amount paid under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Cenvat Credit Rules on exempted goods was not treated as duty of excise for rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, so rebate on that amount was inadmissible. The amount was, however, treated as a deposit made without authority of law, and re-credit in the Cenvat account was permitted. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236283