https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167539 Rebate of input-stage duty on export goods was treated as available where duty-paid inputs were shown to have been used in manufacture or processing for export, even if the goods were routed through a merchant exporter. Non-mention of the merchant exporter's name on the export form and absence of a disclaimer endorsement were treated as procedural defects, not grounds to deny the claim, where duty payment and export were otherwise established. A single invoice description discrepancy in the input fabric was also held insufficient to defeat rebate when the surrounding records consistently supported the use of the correct duty-paid inputs. The substantive export rebate claim was therefore upheld despite technical objections. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Jul 2024 12:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167539 Rebate of input-stage duty on export goods was treated as available where duty-paid inputs were shown to have been used in manufacture or processing for export, even if the goods were routed through a merchant exporter. Non-mention of the merchant exporter's name on the export form and absence of a disclaimer endorsement were treated as procedural defects, not grounds to deny the claim, where duty payment and export were otherwise established. A single invoice description discrepancy in the input fabric was also held insufficient to defeat rebate when the surrounding records consistently supported the use of the correct duty-paid inputs. The substantive export rebate claim was therefore upheld despite technical objections. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167539