Remand power withdrawn under excise law, while rebate to SEZ supplies could not be denied for procedural document lapses.

Withdrawal of remand power under Section 35A(3) meant the Commissioner (Appeals) could not send rebate matters back for de novo verification and had to decide them finally; the remand direction was therefore impermissible. On rebate under Rule 18, supplies treated as exports to SEZ were not to be denied solely for absence of a bill of export or for initial non-filing of bank realisation certificates, because the missing documents were treated as procedural defects where SEZ endorsements and later certificates supported export realisation. Rebate was admissible subject to verification of the documents and endorsements.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the rebate matters for de novo verification after the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (ii) Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be denied for non-production of bill of export and initial non-filing of bank realisation certificates in supplies treated as exports to SEZ.

Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) had power to remand the rebate matters for de novo verification after the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The amendment to Section 35A(3) had withdrawn the appellate authority's power to remand matters back to the adjudicating authority. The appellate authority was therefore expected to decide the dispute finally and not send the matter back for fresh adjudication.

Conclusion: The remand direction was not sustainable, and the objection of the Department on this aspect was accepted.

Issue (ii): Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be denied for non-production of bill of export and initial non-filing of bank realisation certificates in supplies treated as exports to SEZ.

Analysis: The supplies to SEZ were treated as export-like clearances under Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006. The absence of bill of export was viewed as a procedural lapse, not a ground to deny the substantive rebate benefit when the goods were endorsed as received by the SEZ authorities and the later-produced bank realisation certificates supported realisation of export proceeds. The original authority was directed to verify the documents and endorsements.

Conclusion: Rebate was held admissible subject to verification of the documents and endorsements, and the Department's challenge on the merits did not succeed.

Final Conclusion: The revision applications did not result in denial of rebate; the rebate claims were to be sanctioned after the required verification, while the appellate remand direction was held impermissible.

Ratio Decidendi: After withdrawal of remand power under Section 35A(3), the appellate authority must decide rebate disputes finally, but procedural deficiencies such as non-filing of a bill of export cannot by themselves defeat rebate where substantive export to SEZ and supporting evidence are established, subject to verification.

---