https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48654 A substantive rebate of duty on exported goods should not be denied merely for non-compliance with procedural conditions under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules when export of goods and duty-paid input nexus are otherwise proved. Although the claimant had not followed requirements such as registration, declarations, verification of input-output ratio and use of ARE-2, collateral evidence including railway receipts, shipping bills, bills of lading and bills of export established the relevant factual link. The procedural requirements were treated as directory, and rejection of the rebate claim solely on technical lapses was not justified. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Apr 2024 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48654 A substantive rebate of duty on exported goods should not be denied merely for non-compliance with procedural conditions under Notification No. 41/2001-C.E. (N.T.) and Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules when export of goods and duty-paid input nexus are otherwise proved. Although the claimant had not followed requirements such as registration, declarations, verification of input-output ratio and use of ARE-2, collateral evidence including railway receipts, shipping bills, bills of lading and bills of export established the relevant factual link. The procedural requirements were treated as directory, and rejection of the rebate claim solely on technical lapses was not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48654