https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211975 Rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 should not be denied where duty-paid goods were cleared to a Special Economic Zone on ARE-1 duly endorsed by the Range Officer and countersigned by the customs officer. The absence of a bill of export and any sealing defect were treated as technical or procedural lapses, not as grounds to defeat substantive rebate when export to the SEZ was otherwise established on the record. The governing principle is that a beneficial rebate provision must be applied so as to preserve substantive relief, and the revision was rejected with the assessee's entitlement to rebate sustained. en-us Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 11:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211975 Rebate of duty under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 should not be denied where duty-paid goods were cleared to a Special Economic Zone on ARE-1 duly endorsed by the Range Officer and countersigned by the customs officer. The absence of a bill of export and any sealing defect were treated as technical or procedural lapses, not as grounds to defeat substantive rebate when export to the SEZ was otherwise established on the record. The governing principle is that a beneficial rebate provision must be applied so as to preserve substantive relief, and the revision was rejected with the assessee's entitlement to rebate sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211975