Rebate for SEZ supplies cannot be denied for a procedural lapse when export of duty-paid goods is substantively proved.

Rebate under Rule 18 was held admissible for duty-paid goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ unit despite non-filing of the Bill of Export, because the goods were admitted into the SEZ on the basis of ARE-I endorsed by the customs officer. Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules and the relevant circular contemplated the Bill of Export, but its omission was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a failure of substance. As the substantive condition of export of duty-paid goods stood satisfied, the rebate could not be denied on a technical defect, although repeated lapses may justify rejection in a future case.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was admissible for goods supplied from Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ unit despite non-filing of Bill of Export.

Analysis: The supply to the SEZ was not in dispute and the goods had been admitted into the SEZ on the basis of ARE-I endorsed by the customs officer. Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and the Board circular contemplated Bill of Export in cases where export entitlements were availed, but the omission to file such document was treated as a procedural lapse. Since the substantive condition for rebate, namely export of duty-paid goods, stood satisfied, the claim could not be denied merely on a technical defect. A repeated lapse could, however, justify rejection in a future case.

Conclusion: The rebate claim was admissible and the order allowing rebate was upheld; the revision application failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substantive rebate benefit cannot be denied for a mere procedural lapse where export of duty-paid goods to the SEZ is established and the statutory conditions in substance are satisfied.

---