https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41945 Entitlement to duty exemption under Item No. 22A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 depended on proof that the goods had actually been exported and on the competent authority being satisfied of that fact. The authorities recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner failed to produce the necessary documentary evidence, including the endorsed A.R.4, to establish export. As the matter turned on factual satisfaction based on evidence, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere in writ jurisdiction or reappraise the concurrent factual findings. The finding that export was not proved therefore remained undisturbed, and relief was denied. en-us Thu, 23 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 11:30:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41945 Entitlement to duty exemption under Item No. 22A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 depended on proof that the goods had actually been exported and on the competent authority being satisfied of that fact. The authorities recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner failed to produce the necessary documentary evidence, including the endorsed A.R.4, to establish export. As the matter turned on factual satisfaction based on evidence, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere in writ jurisdiction or reappraise the concurrent factual findings. The finding that export was not proved therefore remained undisturbed, and relief was denied. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41945