Export under bond procedural lapse did not bar refund where duty-paid goods were actually exported and defect was waivable.

Refund of duty on export goods was admissible where the goods were admittedly exported and the only defect was non-compliance with the export-under-bond procedure because the bond had expired on the date of removal. The procedural lapse did not defeat relief, as the defect was waivable under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On that basis, the refund claim was allowed and the lower orders were set aside, with consequential relief granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of duty paid on export goods was admissible where the goods were actually exported but the bond had expired on the date of removal, causing non-compliance with the export-under-bond procedure.

Analysis: The goods were removed for export and duty was subsequently paid when it was found that the bond had expired and was not valid on the date of clearance. The duty related to goods that were admittedly exported, and the defect was confined to the procedural requirement of a valid bond. In such circumstances, the failure to follow the export-under-bond procedure could be waived under Rule 12 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: The refund claim was admissible and the appeals succeeded in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and consequential relief was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where duty-paid goods are actually exported, a procedural lapse in the export-under-bond requirement does not defeat entitlement to relief if the defect is waivable under the applicable rules.

---