Rebate for SEZ supplies cannot be denied solely for missing Bill of Export; procedural lapse does not defeat eligibility.

Rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held admissible for duty-paid supplies made from the DTA to an SEZ where the goods were received in the SEZ and the substantive claim was otherwise in order. The absence of a Bill of Export under Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 was treated as a procedural lapse, not a ground to defeat the rebate. The Board circular was read as supporting rebate eligibility for SEZ supplies, so denial of rebate solely for non-filing of the Bill of Export was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be denied for supplies of duty-paid goods to a Special Economic Zone merely because the Bill of Export was not filed under Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006.

Analysis: The claim arose from clearances of duty-paid goods to SEZ units under ARE-1 forms, and the receipt of goods in the SEZ was not disputed. The governing scheme permitted supply from DTA to SEZ under claim of rebate, subject to the prescribed conditions, and the Board circular was read as making the SEZ supply eligible for rebate. Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 was treated as laying down the procedure for such procurements, but the absence of a Bill of Export was held to be only a procedural lapse. On that basis, the denial of rebate on that sole ground was found unjustified.

Conclusion: Rebate could not be refused merely for non-filing of the Bill of Export, and the impugned orders were set aside with a direction to sanction the rebate claim if otherwise in order.

---