TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be denied solely for non-filing of a Bill of Export in respect of supplies made to SEZ. (ii) Whether goods supplied to a contractor of an SEZ developer were eligible for rebate under Rule 10 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and the Board's circular.
Issue (i): Whether rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 could be denied solely for non-filing of a Bill of Export in respect of supplies made to SEZ.
Analysis: The scheme under Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Notification No. 29/2006-Cus. dated 27-12-2006 permits supplies from DTA to SEZ to be treated as eligible for rebate under Rule 18, subject to conditions. The records showed that the goods were duty paid and received by the SEZ customs officer on ARE-1 forms. The absence of a Bill of Export was treated as a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny the substantive rebate benefit where the export-oriented movement of goods was otherwise established.
Conclusion: Rebate could not be rejected merely for non-filing of a Bill of Export; the objection was not sustainable.
Issue (ii): Whether goods supplied to a contractor of an SEZ developer were eligible for rebate under Rule 10 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and the Board's circular.
Analysis: Rule 10 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 extends exemptions, drawbacks and concessions available to a developer or co-developer to their contractors and sub-contractors, provided the documents bear the developer's name and the factual linkage is established. The circular also contemplates application of the Central Excise export procedure mutatis mutandis for supplies to SEZ. On the available material, the supplies claimed to have been made to the contractor of an SEZ developer could fall within this framework, but the factual compliance required verification by the original authority.
Conclusion: Such supplies were capable of qualifying for rebate, subject to verification of the factual basis under Rule 10.
Final Conclusion: The impugned appellate orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after verifying whether the supplies satisfied the SEZ procurement conditions and whether the rebate claim was otherwise admissible.
Ratio Decidendi: A substantive rebate benefit for DTA supplies to SEZ cannot be denied merely for a procedural omission such as non-filing of a Bill of Export, and the benefit may extend to contractors of SEZ developers where the statutory conditions are satisfied.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
