Export under bond benefit survives procedural lapse where goods are cleared with permission and final export is undisputed.

Goods cleared under bond with departmental permission and later exported remained eligible for the export under bond benefit, even though the Revenue objected to strict compliance with the prescribed procedure. Because the final products were admittedly exported and the relevant Board circulars supported bond execution in comparable situations, the procedural lapse did not defeat the substantive exemption. The Tribunal applied the earlier export-related precedent and held that an undisputed export cannot be denied relief merely for an irregularity in the manner of bond execution or routing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of export under bond under Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) dated 26-6-2001 despite the Revenue's objection that the prescribed procedure was not strictly followed.

Analysis: The goods were cleared under bond with departmental permission, processed on job work basis, and ultimately exported. The Revenue did not dispute export of the final products. The Tribunal also noted the relevant Board circulars clarifying the permissibility of bond execution in comparable situations. In these circumstances, the earlier view in the cited export-related precedent applied, and the procedural objection did not defeat the substantive benefit where export stood established.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of export under bond and the Revenue's objection on procedure failed.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge was rejected and the order granting relief to the assessee was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods cleared under bond with departmental permission are ultimately exported, a procedural lapse in the manner of execution or routing of the bond does not justify denial of the export-related exemption or benefit when export is undisputed.

---