https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776742 Rebate of duty on exported samples was held to depend on compliance with the prescribed export procedure under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT). The absence of ARE-1 forms and failure to follow the statutory export route meant the authorities could not verify identity, quantity, and export of the duty-paid goods, so the rebate claim was rejected. The revisional order was also found to be within the statutory framework, and no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference under Article 226. The writ petition therefore failed. en-us Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Aug 2025 08:38:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776742 Rebate of duty on exported samples was held to depend on compliance with the prescribed export procedure under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT). The absence of ARE-1 forms and failure to follow the statutory export route meant the authorities could not verify identity, quantity, and export of the duty-paid goods, so the rebate claim was rejected. The revisional order was also found to be within the statutory framework, and no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference under Article 226. The writ petition therefore failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776742