Export under bond without proof of export can attract duty liability, and a limitation objection may fail.

In a self-removal regime, the assessee's own RG-1, AR-4 and RT-12 records showing manufacture and clearance for export under bond were treated as material evidence, and the burden remained on the assessee to disprove duty liability. Belated reliance on a chartered accountant's certificate and alleged cancellation of the export order was rejected because no contemporaneous proof was produced. As proof of export within the bond period was not furnished, the goods were treated as duty-liable. The limitation objection also failed, as the show cause notice issued under the bond-related procedure was not time-barred.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether duty was payable when the assessee had shown manufacture and export clearance in its own statutory records but failed to produce proof of export. (ii) Whether the show cause notice and duty demand were time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether duty was payable when the assessee had shown manufacture and export clearance in its own statutory records but failed to produce proof of export.

Analysis: The assessee's own RG-1 entries, AR-4 applications, and RT-12 returns showed manufacture and clearance of the goods for export under bond. In a self-removal regime, the controlling records filed by the assessee are material, and the burden lay on the assessee to establish that the recorded manufacture did not in fact occur. The belated chartered accountant's certificate and the alleged cancellation of the export order were not accepted because they were not produced before the lower authorities and were unsupported by contemporaneous cancellation documents. Since the assessee failed to produce proof of export within the bond period, the department was justified in treating the goods as duty-liable.

Conclusion: The duty demand was upheld and the assessee's challenge on the alleged non-manufacture was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice and duty demand were time-barred.

Analysis: The demand arose from goods shown as cleared for export under bond but not supported by proof of export. In these circumstances, the notice issued under the bond-related procedure was not barred by limitation as pleaded by the assessee.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance because the assessee's own statutory records established manufacture and export clearance, while the absence of proof of export attracted duty liability and the limitation objection was rejected.

---