https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90706 Permission granted under Rule 57F(2) was treated as effective only from the date of grant, so it could not validate removals made earlier in anticipation of approval. The Notification No. 214/86-C.E. exemption was available only where the goods satisfied the job-work and undertaking conditions, and those factual requirements were not established for the removal in question, so duty remained payable. On penalty, the pending permission request and surrounding facts were considered sufficient to avoid penal consequences, and the penalty was set aside. en-us Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Oct 2011 18:35:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90706 Permission granted under Rule 57F(2) was treated as effective only from the date of grant, so it could not validate removals made earlier in anticipation of approval. The Notification No. 214/86-C.E. exemption was available only where the goods satisfied the job-work and undertaking conditions, and those factual requirements were not established for the removal in question, so duty remained payable. On penalty, the pending permission request and surrounding facts were considered sufficient to avoid penal consequences, and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 19 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90706