https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244181 The High Court quashed the order rejecting a rebate claim under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to missing original and duplicate copies of ARE1. The Court emphasized that collateral documents could establish proof of export, highlighting inconsistencies in decisions and the need to reconcile conflicting views. The case was remanded for fresh disposal, indicating a departure from the hyper-technical approach of not accepting collateral evidence and recognizing the validity of alternative proof of export in certain circumstances. en-us Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Sep 2014 13:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244181 The High Court quashed the order rejecting a rebate claim under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 due to missing original and duplicate copies of ARE1. The Court emphasized that collateral documents could establish proof of export, highlighting inconsistencies in decisions and the need to reconcile conflicting views. The case was remanded for fresh disposal, indicating a departure from the hyper-technical approach of not accepting collateral evidence and recognizing the validity of alternative proof of export in certain circumstances. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=244181