https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351641 Rebate under the export rebate notifications was unavailable because the statutory conditions were not satisfied: the goods manufactured by contract manufacturers were not exported from the factories of manufacture, and no valid permission under Rule 16(3) was granted. Although the goods were traceable through invoices, declarations, ARE-1 forms, shipping marks and bills of lading, that identification alone could not cure non-compliance with the prescribed export procedure. The departmental communication relied on by the claimants did not amount to permission, as it expressly stated that the question of seeking such permission did not arise. The rebate claims were therefore inadmissible and the rejection was upheld. en-us Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2018 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351641 Rebate under the export rebate notifications was unavailable because the statutory conditions were not satisfied: the goods manufactured by contract manufacturers were not exported from the factories of manufacture, and no valid permission under Rule 16(3) was granted. Although the goods were traceable through invoices, declarations, ARE-1 forms, shipping marks and bills of lading, that identification alone could not cure non-compliance with the prescribed export procedure. The departmental communication relied on by the claimants did not amount to permission, as it expressly stated that the question of seeking such permission did not arise. The rebate claims were therefore inadmissible and the rejection was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 27 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351641