https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72584 Where excisable goods had become unfit for consumption or marketing and were irretrievably destroyed, duty could not be demanded merely because prior permission was not obtained from the Central Excise authorities; the lapse was procedural, not substantive, and the duty demand was set aside. For the same reason, a penalty based on the procedure followed was not justified in the original amount; since the breach was technical and not deliberate, the penalty was reduced. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 May 2011 15:48:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72584 Where excisable goods had become unfit for consumption or marketing and were irretrievably destroyed, duty could not be demanded merely because prior permission was not obtained from the Central Excise authorities; the lapse was procedural, not substantive, and the duty demand was set aside. For the same reason, a penalty based on the procedure followed was not justified in the original amount; since the breach was technical and not deliberate, the penalty was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=72584