https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170224 A mistaken mention of the rebate sanctioning authority in ARE-1 forms was treated as a curable procedural defect where duty-paid export of goods was undisputed, so rebate for the consignments exported through JNPT remained admissible. By contrast, rebate for goods exported through New Customs House, Mumbai was not maintainable before the Raigad authority because its territorial jurisdiction did not extend to that port. The operative principle is that procedural errors do not defeat a substantive rebate claim, but rebate cannot be sanctioned by an authority lacking jurisdiction over the export location. en-us Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 May 2015 12:38:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170224 A mistaken mention of the rebate sanctioning authority in ARE-1 forms was treated as a curable procedural defect where duty-paid export of goods was undisputed, so rebate for the consignments exported through JNPT remained admissible. By contrast, rebate for goods exported through New Customs House, Mumbai was not maintainable before the Raigad authority because its territorial jurisdiction did not extend to that port. The operative principle is that procedural errors do not defeat a substantive rebate claim, but rebate cannot be sanctioned by an authority lacking jurisdiction over the export location. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170224