2012 (6) TMI 775 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - respondents had not filed Bill of Export with the claims - Held that - in terms of Para (5) of Board s Circular No. 29/2006-Cus., dated 27-12-2006, the supply from DTA to SEZ shall be eligible for claim of rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 subject to fulfilment of conditions laid thereon - Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006 prescribes for the procedure for procurements from the Domestic Tariff Area. As per sub-rule (1) of the said Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006, DTA may supply the goods to SEZ, as in the case of exports, either under Bond or as duty paid goods under claim of rebate on the cover of ARE-1. - Customs Officer at SEZ has certified on the ARE-I that goods have been admitted in full in the SEZ. Therefore receipt of goods in SEZ is not disputed. The fundamental condition for granting rebate of duty paid on exported goods is that duty paid goods are exported. The said fact is not in dispute in this case. The substantial benefit of rebate claims cannot be denied for only lapse of not filing Bill of Export which is a procedural lapse of technical nature - Decision in the case of UOI v. Suksha International 1989 (1) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT - rebate claim is rightly held admissible in this case by Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Revision application against rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Interpretation of provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Customs.
3. Requirement of filing Bill of Export along with rebate claims for export entitlements.
4. Dispute regarding the movement of goods from the place of manufacture to the SEZ.
5. Admissibility of rebate claims in cases of procedural lapses.
6. Application of Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules to SEZ units for authorized operations.

Analysis:
The case involves a revision application filed against the rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The respondents had supplied goods to SEZ units and filed rebate claims, which were rejected for not submitting the Bill of Export along with the claims, as required for export entitlements. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the respondents, leading to the revision application by the department.

The main contention revolved around the interpretation of sub-rule (3) of Rule 30 of special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 and Board's Circular No. 29/2006-Customs. The department argued that the movement of goods to SEZ required Bills of Export for claiming rebate, while the respondents cited circulars stating that such requirements apply only when export entitlements are availed.

The government observed that the supply from DTA to SEZ is eligible for rebate under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, subject to conditions. Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006 allows for procurement from DTA under Bond or as duty paid goods under rebate on the cover of ARE-1. The government noted that goods were cleared to SEZ under rebate claims, requiring submission of ARE-I and Bill of Export.

Despite the procedural lapse of not filing the Bill of Export, the government held that the rebate claims were admissible as duty paid goods were exported, as per Supreme Court judgments. The Order-in-Appeal upholding the rebate claims was affirmed, with a caution that repeated lapses could lead to rejection of rebate benefits. The revision application was disposed of accordingly.