https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787261 Non-production of original ARE-1 forms and similar procedural defects do not, by themselves, justify rejection of a rebate claim where export on payment of duty is otherwise established through contemporaneous evidence such as quadruplicate ARE-1 forms, invoices, shipping bills and an indemnity bond. The commentary states that the procedural requirement is directory in such a setting, and the authority should identify specific defects and allow rectification. It further states that a rebate claim first filed within time and later returned for defect, then re-filed after correction, relates back to the original filing and is not barred by limitation. en-us Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:34:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787261 Non-production of original ARE-1 forms and similar procedural defects do not, by themselves, justify rejection of a rebate claim where export on payment of duty is otherwise established through contemporaneous evidence such as quadruplicate ARE-1 forms, invoices, shipping bills and an indemnity bond. The commentary states that the procedural requirement is directory in such a setting, and the authority should identify specific defects and allow rectification. It further states that a rebate claim first filed within time and later returned for defect, then re-filed after correction, relates back to the original filing and is not barred by limitation. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787261