Technical lapse in export documentation cannot justify general penalty where Revenue already had the required information.

Penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable for non-filing of Annexure 19 in relation to export of goods because the filing obligation arose only from supplementary instructions, not from a substantive requirement under Rule 19 or the export notification. Rule 31 was treated as permitting only incidental or supplementary instructions consistent with the Act and Rules. As the relevant information was already available with the Revenue and no revenue loss was shown, the lapse was treated as technical or venial, and general penalty under Rule 27 was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was sustainable for non-filing of Annexure 19 in respect of export of goods when the information was otherwise available to the Revenue.

Analysis: Rule 31 empowers issuance of supplementary instructions only for incidental or supplementary matters consistent with the Act and the Rules. The obligation to file Annexure 19 was treated as arising from supplementary instructions and not as a substantive requirement under Rule 19 or the notification governing export without payment of duty. Since the required information was already available with the Revenue and the lapse caused no revenue loss, the default was considered merely technical or venial. In that situation, imposition of general penalty under Rule 27 was not justified.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---