https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237338 Rebate of duty on duty-paid goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Special Economic Zone could not be denied solely because a Bill of Export was not filed where the goods were admitted into the Special Economic Zone on ARE-1 and receipt was certified. Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and the relevant Board circular required supporting export documentation, but the omission was treated as a technical procedural lapse that did not defeat the substantive fact of clearance to the Special Economic Zone. The rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was therefore admissible, and rejection on that ground alone was not justified. en-us Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:07:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237338 Rebate of duty on duty-paid goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to a Special Economic Zone could not be denied solely because a Bill of Export was not filed where the goods were admitted into the Special Economic Zone on ARE-1 and receipt was certified. Rule 30 of the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and the relevant Board circular required supporting export documentation, but the omission was treated as a technical procedural lapse that did not defeat the substantive fact of clearance to the Special Economic Zone. The rebate claim under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was therefore admissible, and rejection on that ground alone was not justified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237338