https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110111 Penalty under Rule 25 could not be sustained where the demand based on Section 7 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 had already failed after repeal of that statute before clearance of the goods. The alleged contravention founded on a rebate claim also could not stand because no rebate application by the manufacturer or exporter was shown, and that ground was not raised in the show cause notice. Rule 18 and Notification 40/01 apply in the rebate context, so in the absence of any rebate claim the legal foundation for penalty was missing. The appeals therefore succeeded and the penalty was set aside. en-us Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:43:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110111 Penalty under Rule 25 could not be sustained where the demand based on Section 7 of the Sugar Export Promotion Act, 1958 had already failed after repeal of that statute before clearance of the goods. The alleged contravention founded on a rebate claim also could not stand because no rebate application by the manufacturer or exporter was shown, and that ground was not raised in the show cause notice. Rule 18 and Notification 40/01 apply in the rebate context, so in the absence of any rebate claim the legal foundation for penalty was missing. The appeals therefore succeeded and the penalty was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110111