https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54734 Refund of CENVAT credit for inputs used in exported goods could not be denied solely because ARE-1 was not produced when the exporter furnished shipping bills, bills of lading and bank realisation certificates establishing export. The prescribed refund procedure under Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. required supporting export evidence, but the available documents were sufficient to verify actual export and the claim could not be rejected on a purely technical omission if otherwise admissible. The refund rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority after hearing the exporter. en-us Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:32:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54734 Refund of CENVAT credit for inputs used in exported goods could not be denied solely because ARE-1 was not produced when the exporter furnished shipping bills, bills of lading and bank realisation certificates establishing export. The prescribed refund procedure under Notification No. 11/2002-C.E. required supporting export evidence, but the available documents were sufficient to verify actual export and the claim could not be rejected on a purely technical omission if otherwise admissible. The refund rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter had to be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority after hearing the exporter. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54734