Missing Export Form Not Fatal If Duty-Paid Export Proven: Gujarat High Court Restores Rs 1.29 Crore Excise Rebate

The Gujarat High Court has restored over Rs.1.29 Crore rebate claim of a merchant exporter, holding that the absence of original ARE-1 forms cannot defeat a rebate claim when export and duty payment are otherwise verifiable.

ARE-1 stands for Application for Removal of Excisable Goods for Export. It was a statutory export document under the Central Excise Rules, 2002. It recorded details of manufacture, duty payment, and export. Under Rule 18, the original copy was ordinarily required to be filed along with a rebate claim.

On 20 February 2026, a Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi found that the claim was rejected on technical grounds without identifying specific deficiencies.

The exporter had filed a rebate claim of Rs. 1,32,92,598 on 29 December 2017. The application was returned the same day citing non-compliance with Paragraph 3(b)(i) of Notification No. 19/2004-CE. No defect was specified.

The claim was re-filed on 26 June 2018. During relocation of its finance team from Mumbai to Hyderabad, the original and duplicate ARE-1 forms were misplaced.

The exporter produced quadruplicate copies of ARE-1, an indemnity bond, invoices and shipping bills. The Assistant Commissioner examined the material and sanctioned Rs. 1,29,92,156.

The appellate and revisional authorities later set aside the sanction. They held that original ARE-1 copies were mandatory and that the re-filed claim was barred by limitation under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act.

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court relied on earlier Division Bench rulings holding that non-production of original and duplicate ARE-1 copies by itself cannot be a ground to reject rebate if other export documents establish duty-paid export.

"Thus, the Coordinate Bench has held that merely because an exporter is unable to produce the original and duplicate copies of ARE-1 along with the rebate claim, the same would not by itself be fatal, provided other contemporaneous documents such as mate's receipts, shipping bills, bills of lading, etc., are produced and from such supporting documents it stands established that the excisable goods have in fact been exported on payment of duty from the factory or warehouse. In such circumstances, the exporter would be entitled to rebate of duty"

Subsequently, the court observed, 

“In the present case, the petitioner No.1 has produced quadruplicate copies of ARE-1 along with an indemnity bond and other supporting documents such as invoices and shipping bills, etc. These documents have not been doubted by the respondents. From the material on record, it appears that the competent authority, while passing the Order-in-Original, committed no error or illegality in sanctioning the rebate of Rs. 1,29,92,156/-.”

On limitation, the Court applied the relate-back principle. It held that since the original application was filed on December 29, 2017 and merely returned without adjudication, the re-filed claim must relate back to that date.

The bench further observed:

“In the present case, therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Kachchh, Gandhidham, instead of returning the application on 29.12.2017, ought to have pointed out the specific deficiencies, thereby enabling the petitioners to rectify them. This constitutes yet another irregularity in the process adopted by the respondents.”

The court quashed the appellate and revisional orders and revived the order-in-original dated September 25, 2018.

For Petitioner: Advocate Amrita M. Thakore, Bhavesh B Chokshi

For Respondent: Senior Standing Counsel Hardika Vyas