MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.T. No. 2994/2011 by which the petitioner's petition has been dismissed.

2. Brief resumption of quintessential facts, necessary for deciding the petition are that the petitioner, a registered merchant exporter and engaged in export of R.N. Steel products, submitted an application under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2002) read with notification dated 6.9.04 (relevant notification in short) claiming refund/rebate of duty paid on goods exported. The application was rejected by the first respondent which was affirmed by the appellate authority and thereafter, affirmed by the revisional authority also giving rise to this petition. Before the learned Single Judge, writ petitioner sought to assail the order on the ground that the scheme of rebate being a beneficial exemption to promote exports, require liberal interpretation and mere non submission of some of the required documents, in the present case, ARE-1 (application) for removal of cause for export would not Ipsofacto result in rejection of claim. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Mumbai Vs. M. Ambalal & Company, 2010 (13) SCALE 266, it was submitted that the requirement of submission of ARE-1 is merely procedural and not substantive legal requirement therefore if some reason, ARE-1 was not submitted, the authority was required to evaluate other collateral documentary evidence while examining the claim of rebate.

3. The stand taken by the counsel for Revenue is that the requirement of production of original copy of ARE-1 is a mandatory requirement to establish that the goods have suffered duty at the time of removal from the factory of manufacture and further that they are actually exported.

4. The argument that non submission of ARE-1 was mere technical breach, did not find favour. Learned single Judge, referring to Rule 18 of Rules, 2002 and the relevant notification as also judgment of the Supreme Court in N. Ambalal (supra) held that the precondition to seek rebate was of mandatory nature and non submission of the same render the claim for rebate is liable to be rejected.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, relying upon Government of India & Others Vs. Indian Tobacco Association, AIR 2005 SC 3685, Formica India Division & Others Vs. Collector of Central Excise & Others, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 552, Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Others, AIR 1992 SC 152, Union of India Vs. Bharat Aluminium Co. 2011 (263) ELT 48 (Chhattisgarh), Zandu Chemicals Limited Vs. Union of India, 2015 (315) ELT 520 (Bom.), Union of India Vs. Farheen Texturisers, 2015 (323) ELT 104 (Bom.), Tablets India Ltd. Vs. Jt. Secy, GOI, 2010 (259) ELT 191 (Mad.), Raj Petro Specialties Vs. Union of India & Others, 2017 (345) ELT 496 (Guj.) and UM Cables Limited Vs. Union of India & Others, 2013 (293) ELT 641 (Bom.) argued in extensio to convince the Court that the requirement of submission of ARE-1 is merely procedural in form and not substantive legal requirement and even when such document ARE-1 is not produced, the other collateral documentary evidence in proof of the fact that the goods were duty paid and actually exported are required to be examined by the authority and in appropriate case, where the other extrinsic evidence is found reliable, application for rebate ought to be allowed rather than rejecting his claim on technical breach of non-production of ARE-1.

6. Learned counsel for the Revenue emphasized upon the policy as laid down in the Rules of 2002, in so far as the claim of rebate is concerned, by submitting that the object of the scheme is not merely procedural but a substantive one aimed at ensuring that there is due and proper certification of the goods having been duty paid on the ac