https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170472 Withdrawal of remand power under Section 35A(3) meant the Commissioner (Appeals) could not send rebate matters back for de novo verification and had to decide them finally; the remand direction was therefore impermissible. On rebate under Rule 18, supplies treated as exports to SEZ were not to be denied solely for absence of a bill of export or for initial non-filing of bank realisation certificates, because the missing documents were treated as procedural defects where SEZ endorsements and later certificates supported export realisation. Rebate was admissible subject to verification of the documents and endorsements. en-us Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2015 12:53:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170472 Withdrawal of remand power under Section 35A(3) meant the Commissioner (Appeals) could not send rebate matters back for de novo verification and had to decide them finally; the remand direction was therefore impermissible. On rebate under Rule 18, supplies treated as exports to SEZ were not to be denied solely for absence of a bill of export or for initial non-filing of bank realisation certificates, because the missing documents were treated as procedural defects where SEZ endorsements and later certificates supported export realisation. Rebate was admissible subject to verification of the documents and endorsements. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170472