JUDGMENT : DEBANGSU BASAK, J. 1. The petitioner has assailed an order of the revisional authority dated July 21, 2010. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the petitioner had exported three shipments of Pyrolisis Gasoline (Py Gas) on payment of excise duty. The Py Gas was produced by using Naptha as raw materials which was imported by the petitioner in terms of the Advance Licence dated September 1, 2003. Imported Naptha is exempt from customs duty. The petitioner being entitled to benefits of the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme applied for the same. The rebate claims made by the petitioner in terms of the DEEC Scheme were accompanied by copies of ARE - 1 Forms duly signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Range-II, Haldia-II Division and the Preventive Officer of the Customs. The authorities did not allow the rebate. On the contrary, a show cause notice dated August 24, 2004 was issued alleging that, the exports contravene the provisions of Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and that, the rebate claims cannot be sanctioned. The petitioner replied thereto. The show cause notice dated August 24, 2004 was adjudicated upon and an order in original dated December 20, 2005 was passed. The petitioner preferred an appeal there from. Such appeal was allowed by an order dated March 29, 2007. The department filed a revisional application which was disposed of by the impugned order dated July 21, 2010. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, the revisional authority erred in reversing the order under appeal and disallowing the claim for rebate. He has submitted that, the ARE-1 Form is conclusive evidence of the exports occurring in terms of the contents of the ARE-1 Form. The ARE-1 Forms were duly sanctioned by the Government Officers. Such ARE-1 Forms are not under challenge by the department. Therefore, the revisional authority ought not to have reversed the finding rendered by the order in original. He has referred to various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notification dated September 6, 2004 in support of his contentions. He has also relied upon (UM Cables Limited v. Union of India, (2013) 293 ELT 641 (Bom.)) in support of his contentions. 4. He has referred to various provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the notification dated September 6, 2004 in support of his contentions. He has also relied upon (UM Cables Limited v. Union of India, (2013) 293 ELT 641 (Bom.)) in support of his contentions. 4. Learned Advocate appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of the Court to the affidavit in opposition filed on behalf of the respondents. He has submitted that, the claim for rebate made by the petitioner was not accompanied by the requisite documents as contemplated in the notification dated September 6, 2004. Such notification was issued under Rule 18 of the Central Excise (2) Rules 2002. Since the petitioner failed to file the requisite documents, the revisional authority correctly remanded the matter to the appellate authority to take such facts into consideration. Therefore, the Writ Court need not interfere. 5. It is admitted by the parties that, the petitioner exported Py Gas by three several ARE - 1 forms bearing No. 481/0304 dated September 3, 2003, 574/0304 dated November 7, 2003 and 618/2003 dated November 28, 2003. The petitioner submitted rebate claims on October 20, 2003, January 14, 2004 and January 15, 2004. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the ARE-1 forms are not the only documents for grant of rebate claim in view of the notification bearing No. 19/2004 - CE (NT) dated September 4, 2004. 6. The relevant provisions of the notification dated September 6, 2004 are as follows :- "(3) Procedures:- (a) Sealing of Goods and examination at the place of dispatch and export:- (i) The manufacturer exporters registered under the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and merchant-exporters who procure and export the goods directly from the factory or warehouse can exercise the option of exporting the goods sealed at the place of dispatch by a Central Excise Officer or under self-sealing. ................................................. (iv) For the sealing of goods intended for export, at the place of dispatch, the exporter shall present the goods along with four copies of application in the Form ARE-1 specified in the Annexure to this notification to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production or manufacture or warehouse; ................................................. ................................................. (iv) For the sealing of goods intended for export, at the place of dispatch, the exporter shall present the goods along with four copies of application in the Form ARE-1 specified in the Annexure to this notification to the Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production or manufacture or warehouse; ................................................. (xii) In case of self-sealing, the said Superintendent or Inspector of Central Excise shall, after verifying the particulars of the duty paid or duty payable and endorsing the correctness or otherwise, of these particulars- (a) Send to the officer with whom rebate claim is to be filed, either by post or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover after posting the particulars in official records, or (b) Send to the Excise Rebate Audit Section at the place of export in case rebate is to be claimed by electronic declaration on Electronic Data Interchange system of Custom; ................................................. (xv) The officer of customs shall return the original and quadruplicate (optional copy for exporter) copies of application to the exporter and forward the duplicate copy of application either by post or by handing over to the exporter in a tamper proof sealed cover to the officer specified in the application, from whom the exporter wants to claim rebate: ................................................. (xvi)......... (b) Presentation of claim for rebate to Central Excise:- ................................................. (ii) The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of manufacture or warehouse or, as the case may be, Maritime Commissioner or Central Excise shall compare the duplicate copy of application received from the officer of customs with the original copy received from the exporter and with the triplicate copy received from the Central Excise Officer and if satisfied that the claim is in order, he shall sanction the rebate either in whole or in part." 7. It is also the contention of the respondents that, the claim for rebate is guided by the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005. Chapter 8 of such Supplementary Instructions, 2005 deals with export under claim for rebate. Paragraph 8 thereof is as follows:- "8. It is also the contention of the respondents that, the claim for rebate is guided by the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with CBEC's Excise Manual of Supplementary Instructions, 2005. Chapter 8 of such Supplementary Instructions, 2005 deals with export under claim for rebate. Paragraph 8 thereof is as follows:- "8. Sanction of claim for rebate by Central Excise 8.1 The rebate claim can be sanctioned by any of the following officers of Central Excise:- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory of production of export goods or the warehouse; or Maritime Commissioner. 8.2 It shall be essential for the exporter to indicate on the A.R.E. 1 at the time of removal of export goods the office and its complete address with which they intend to file claim of rebate. 8.3 The following documents shall be required for filing claim of rebate: (i) A request on the letterhead of the exporter containing clam of rebate, A.R.E. 1 numbers and dates, corresponding invoice numbers and dates amount of rebate on each A.R.E. 1 and its calculations, (ii) original copy of the A.R.E. 1, (iii) invoice issued under rule 11, (iv) self attested copy of shipping Bill, and (v) self attested copy of Bill of Lading. (vi) Disclaimer Certificate [in case where claimant is other than exporter]" 8. Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 is as follows:- "Rule 18. Rebate of duty.- Where any goods are exported, the Central Government may, by notification, grant rebate or duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on materials used in the manufacturing or processing or such goods and the rebate shall be subject to such conditions or limitations, if any, and fulfilment of such procedures, as may be specified in the notification." 9. Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 contemplates that, the Central Government may grant rebate of duty paid on such excisable goods or duty paid on material used in the manufacture or processing of such goods and that, the rebate would be subject to such conditions or limitations if any and fulfilment of such procedure as may be prescribed in the notification. The notification dated September 6, 2004 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. The notification dated September 6, 2004 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002. The notification dated September 6, 2004 lays down the procedure by which, an application for grant of rebate is to be considered. UM Cables Limited (supra) considering such notification and Rule 18 of the Rules of 2002 is of the view that, an exporter is entitled to lead supplementary evidence to establish its claim for grant of rebate. Non production of the documents stipulated in the notification does not ipso facto result in the claim being invalidated. In the present case, the claim of the petitioner for rebate was accompanied with the original ARE-1 forms. The petitioner submitted the ARE-1 forms with the authorities for consideration. The claim was initially rejected by the adjudicating authority and was allowed on appeal. The revisional authority disallowed the claim by requiring the petitioner to produce further documents. Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 require that the rebate claim should be accompanied by the documents stipulated therein. A claimant making a claim is required to substantiate such claim by cogent evidence. The claim is required to be adjudicated on merits. A claimant can succeed to substantiate its claim on the basis of all or any of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 or on the basis of secondary evidence. What is required is that the claim is substantiated by cogent evidence. Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 is required to be read in such context. If a claimant is in a position to substantiate its claim for rebate in the basis of any of the documents mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the Supplementary Instructions, 2005 or by leading secondary evidence with regard to its claim, then such claim is required to be allowed notwithstanding the failure of the claimant to produce all the documents mentioned therein. 10. With respect, the revisional authority is incorrect when, it disallows the claim. It is not the case of the respondents that, the ARE-1 forms are questionable documents. The validity and the veracity of the ARE-1 forms have not been doubted by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings till date. The ARE-1 forms are issued by the authorities themselves. 10. With respect, the revisional authority is incorrect when, it disallows the claim. It is not the case of the respondents that, the ARE-1 forms are questionable documents. The validity and the veracity of the ARE-1 forms have not been doubted by the respondents in the adjudication proceedings till date. The ARE-1 forms are issued by the authorities themselves. Therefore, in absence of the respondents doubting the veracity of the ARE-1 forms, the adjudicating authority ought to have allowed the claim for rebate as made by the petitioner. 11. In such circumstances, the order of the revisional authority is quashed. The authorities will act in terms of the order passed by the appellate authority. 12. W.P. No. 1650 of 2010 is disposed of. No order as to costs. 13. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.