Export proof already furnished defeats excise duty demand based on alleged breach of export-bond conditions.

Central excise duty demand based on alleged non-submission of proof of export could not stand where the export documents had already been furnished before the authorities. The Court held that the factual foundation for alleging breach of the export-bond conditions was ? Need English. Since the record and the Assistant Collector's own order showed production of the export documents, the premise of contravention was incorrect and the duty demand had no legal basis. Any delay issue did not alter this merits-based finding, and the demand with the affirming appellate order was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty and the appellate order could be sustained when the export documents had already been furnished and the sole basis for the demand was alleged non-submission of proof of export within time.

Analysis: The writ petition challenged the excise authorities' orders proceeding on the footing that the petitioners had failed to submit proof of export. The record showed that the export documents had in fact been produced before the concerned authorities and the Assistant Collector's own order referred to that fact. Since the foundation of the demand was therefore incorrect, the conclusion that the petitioners had contravened the export-bond conditions could not be sustained. The Court also noted the delay aspect but proceeded to examine the matter on merits and found no basis for the duty demand.

Conclusion: The demand of excise duty and the order affirming it were unsustainable and were quashed.

---