Mandatory prior approval for export under bond was required; later export proof did not cure duty liability.

Rule 196A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 permits export of surplus excisable goods obtained under Rule 192 only with the previous approval of the proper officer. Mere intimation to the jurisdictional Superintendent is not equivalent to such approval, and later counter-signature on gate passes or acceptance of proof of export does not cure the initial non-compliance. Export under bond and recourse to drawback or other export procedures are separate matters and do not extinguish the duty consequence arising from breach of the mandatory condition. Duty therefore remained recoverable, and the challenge to its recovery failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty remained recoverable on excisable goods exported under bond when the previous approval of the proper officer under Rule 196A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 had not been obtained, and whether such non-compliance could be neutralised by intimation to the jurisdictional Superintendent, counter-signature on gate passes, or proof of export.

Analysis: Rule 196A permits export of surplus excisable goods obtained under Rule 192 only with the previous approval of the proper officer. Mere correspondence intimating an intention to export does not amount to the required approval. The fact that the goods were exported under bond, that the gate passes bore counter-signature, or that proof of export was later accepted, does not cure the earlier breach of the mandatory condition. Any remedy such as drawback or other export procedure is distinct and does not erase the duty consequence flowing from non-observance of Rule 196A.

Conclusion: The reference application failed; duty liability survived because the mandatory prior approval was not obtained, and the challenge to the recoverability of duty was rejected.

---