Procedural lapse in filing Bill of Export cannot defeat rebate on duty paid supplies to SEZ units when substantive conditions are met.

Rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remained admissible for duty paid goods supplied to an SEZ unit where the substantive conditions were satisfied and the goods were received and endorsed on the ARE-1 by the Customs officer. The absence of a Bill of Export with the claim was treated as a procedural lapse, not a defect defeating entitlement, because the supply from DTA to SEZ was covered by Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 and the relevant Board circular. Denial of rebate solely on that ground would have overridden the substantive benefit, so the rebate orders were sustained and the department's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was admissible for duty paid goods supplied to SEZ units when Bills of Export were not filed along with the claim.

Analysis: The supply of goods from DTA to SEZ units was covered by Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Board Circular No. 29/2006-Cus. The scheme permitted rebate on duty paid goods supplied to SEZ on the basis of ARE-1, and the requirement of Bill of Export was a procedural requirement linked to certain export entitlements. The goods were admittedly received by the SEZ unit and endorsed by the Customs officer on the ARE-1 form. In these circumstances, denial of rebate only for non-filing of Bill of Export would defeat the substantive entitlement.

Conclusion: Rebate was admissible and the revision applications were without merit.

Final Conclusion: The orders allowing rebate were sustained, and the department's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural lapse in filing a Bill of Export cannot by itself defeat a rebate claim for duty paid goods supplied to an SEZ unit when the substantive conditions for rebate are satisfied.

---