Procedural lapses cannot defeat export exemption when substantive conditions are satisfied under the notification.

The exemption under Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.) could not be denied merely because proof of export was not filed within six months, since the notification did not prescribe that time limit. Failure to submit the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours was also treated as a procedural lapse only. Where supply of goods to SEZ units was otherwise undisputed and the substantive conditions were satisfied, the procedural omissions could not defeat the benefit of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 42/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 26-6-2001, could be denied for failure to file proof of export within six months and for non-submission of ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours.

Analysis: The notification required proof of export but did not prescribe any time limit for furnishing such proof, so the authorities could not import a six-month restriction. The lapse in filing the ARE-1 triplicate copy within 24 hours was procedural only. Where the supply of goods to SEZ units was not in dispute, denial of the exemption merely for that procedural omission was unwarranted. Procedural requirements are meant to advance the substantive relief and should not defeat it when the underlying clearance is otherwise established.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied solely on account of the stated procedural lapses, if the substantive conditions were otherwise satisfied.

---