https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264658 Refund of excise duty on exported sugar was denied because the claimant failed to prove that the duty-paid goods cleared from the factory or warehouse were the same goods exported through the merchant exporter. The absence of adequate identification marks, failure to establish repacking under authorised supervision, and non-compliance with the notification's prescribed conditions were treated as material defects. The rule that minor procedural lapses should not defeat substantive relief was held inapplicable because the foundational requirement of identity and duty-paid character of the exported goods was not substantiated. The rejection of the rebate claims was upheld. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264658 Refund of excise duty on exported sugar was denied because the claimant failed to prove that the duty-paid goods cleared from the factory or warehouse were the same goods exported through the merchant exporter. The absence of adequate identification marks, failure to establish repacking under authorised supervision, and non-compliance with the notification's prescribed conditions were treated as material defects. The rule that minor procedural lapses should not defeat substantive relief was held inapplicable because the foundational requirement of identity and duty-paid character of the exported goods was not substantiated. The rejection of the rebate claims was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264658