https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423164 Madras HC held that rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be finally rejected merely because of apparent discrepancies between shipping bills, ARE-1 forms and an incomplete Bank Realisation Certificate, where export of goods was otherwise undisputed. The authorities were required to examine the export invoice and connected records to determine the duty paid on exports and decide the claim on merits. The revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and passing a fresh order in accordance with law. en-us Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Jun 2022 07:42:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423164 Madras HC held that rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could not be finally rejected merely because of apparent discrepancies between shipping bills, ARE-1 forms and an incomplete Bank Realisation Certificate, where export of goods was otherwise undisputed. The authorities were required to examine the export invoice and connected records to determine the duty paid on exports and decide the claim on merits. The revisional orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee and passing a fresh order in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423164