Specific statutory procedure controls EPCG benefit for SEZ clearances, and general DTA removal provisions cannot override it.

A Special Economic Zone unit could not claim Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme benefit on clearance to the Domestic Tariff Area unless it first exited the SEZ under the specific one-time mechanism in Rule 74(4). The statutory scheme under section 30 of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the SEZ Rules, 2006 permitted DTA removal, but that general facility did not override the exit-based procedure prescribed for EPCG availment. The specific manner and stage for taking the benefit was treated as exclusive, and the broader DTA clearance provisions were not read to make Rule 74(4) redundant. The customs duty demand and reassessment were therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether capital goods could be cleared from a Special Economic Zone unit to the Domestic Tariff Area under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme without the unit first exiting the Special Economic Zone and obtaining the contemplated one-time permission, and whether the customs demand raised on that basis was sustainable.

Analysis: The statutory scheme was read as permitting clearance of goods from a Special Economic Zone to the Domestic Tariff Area under the conditions specified in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006. Section 30 and the relevant rules permit Domestic Tariff Area clearance, but Rule 74(4) creates a specific one-time option for an exiting unit to avail the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme at the stage of exit. The specific procedure prescribed for such availment was treated as exclusive, and the broader provisions governing Domestic Tariff Area removal were not read as allowing the same benefit at any other stage. The interpretation adopted gave effect to the special exit-based mechanism and rejected a construction that would make Rule 74(4) redundant.

Conclusion: The benefit of the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme was not available to the unit in the manner claimed, and the customs duty demand and related reassessment were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the claimed EPCG clearance from the Special Economic Zone unit was held impermissible outside the statutory exit route, leaving the duty liability intact.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute prescribes a specific manner and stage for availing a benefit, that benefit must be taken only in that manner and at that stage, and not by resort to a different general provision.

---