2013 (3) TMI 142 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Supply of Goods to SEZ - Rebate claim - Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. - the Bill of Export in respect of ARE-1s prepared were not filed - mandatory condition or not - held that - Bill of Export is required to be filed in terms of sub-rule (5) of Rule 30 for making clearances to the SEZ. In this case the clearance of duty paid goods to SEZ Units and receipt of same in SEZ Units is not disputed by department. The only lapse of non filing of Bill of Export can not be ground to deny the substantial benefit of rebate claim, under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2008. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of rebate claims under Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 due to non-submission of Bill of Export.

Analysis:
The revision applications were filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting rebate claims by M/s. Indo Amines Ltd. The original adjudicating authority granted rebate on two claims but rejected five others totaling Rs. 2,37,346, due to non-filing of 'Bill of Export' for goods cleared to a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Chennai. The rejection was based on Rule 18 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 and Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to recovery orders and interest under Section 11AB.

The appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed, upholding the rejection of rebate claims. The Revision Applications to the Central Government challenged the rejection on the grounds that the filing of Bill of Export is not a pre-condition for rebate claims under Rule 18. It was argued that Rule 30 of SEZ Rules, 2006 pertains to SEZ unit procedures, not the supplier, and the goods were duly received by the SEZ unit, supported by endorsed ARE-1 copies.

The applicants contended that the SEZ Rules do not mandate Bill of Export submission for rebate claims, and Circulars supported the application of Central Excise Rules for rebate claims without such conditions. The Government noted the undisputed export of duty-paid goods to SEZ units and ruled that the non-filing of Bill of Export should not deny the rebate claim benefits under Rule 18.

The Government set aside the impugned orders, directing the original authority to sanction the rebate claims if found in order. The revision applications were disposed of accordingly, providing relief to the applicant and emphasizing the importance of fulfilling substantive requirements over procedural lapses in rebate claims under the Central Excise Rules.