https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220647 Rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remained admissible for duty paid goods supplied to an SEZ unit where the substantive conditions were satisfied and the goods were received and endorsed on the ARE-1 by the Customs officer. The absence of a Bill of Export with the claim was treated as a procedural lapse, not a defect defeating entitlement, because the supply from DTA to SEZ was covered by Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 and the relevant Board circular. Denial of rebate solely on that ground would have overridden the substantive benefit, so the rebate orders were sustained and the department's challenge failed. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220647 Rebate under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 remained admissible for duty paid goods supplied to an SEZ unit where the substantive conditions were satisfied and the goods were received and endorsed on the ARE-1 by the Customs officer. The absence of a Bill of Export with the claim was treated as a procedural lapse, not a defect defeating entitlement, because the supply from DTA to SEZ was covered by Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 and the relevant Board circular. Denial of rebate solely on that ground would have overridden the substantive benefit, so the rebate orders were sustained and the department's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=220647