https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170473 Rebate under Rule 18 was held admissible for duty-paid goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ unit despite non-filing of the Bill of Export, because the goods were admitted into the SEZ on the basis of ARE-I endorsed by the customs officer. Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules and the relevant circular contemplated the Bill of Export, but its omission was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a failure of substance. As the substantive condition of export of duty-paid goods stood satisfied, the rebate could not be denied on a technical defect, although repeated lapses may justify rejection in a future case. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2015 12:47:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170473 Rebate under Rule 18 was held admissible for duty-paid goods supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ unit despite non-filing of the Bill of Export, because the goods were admitted into the SEZ on the basis of ARE-I endorsed by the customs officer. Rule 30 of the SEZ Rules and the relevant circular contemplated the Bill of Export, but its omission was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a failure of substance. As the substantive condition of export of duty-paid goods stood satisfied, the rebate could not be denied on a technical defect, although repeated lapses may justify rejection in a future case. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170473