Procedural delay in export rebate approval does not defeat substantive entitlement when notification conditions are otherwise met.

Rebate of duty on inputs used in exported goods was not to be denied solely because approval of the input-output ratio and export permission were obtained after clearance. The scheme under Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT), read with Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the CBEC Excise Manual, required prior declaration and verification, but the decisive point was that exports had in fact taken place and the other substantive conditions were satisfied. A procedural lapse in timing was treated as insufficient to defeat the rebate where no other non-compliance was shown, and the rebate claim was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether rebate of duty on inputs used in export goods could be denied solely because prior approval of the input-output ratio and permission for export were obtained after clearance, when the other conditions of the notification were complied with.

Analysis: The application for rebate was examined under Notification No. 21/2004-CE (NT) read with Rule 15 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and the supplementary instructions in Chapter 8 of the CBEC Excise Manual. The governing requirement was that the manufacturer should file the declaration and obtain verification and approval of the input-output ratio from the jurisdictional authority before export. The record showed that the declaration had been filed and was subsequently approved after export. The determining consideration was that the rebate scheme is intended to grant relief where exports have in fact taken place and the substantive conditions are satisfied. Reliance was placed on the principle that a procedural lapse should not defeat the substantive rebate where no non-compliance with the other notification conditions is shown.

Conclusion: Denial of rebate solely for want of prior approval was not justified. The rebate claim was held admissible and the revision application was allowed.

---