https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110523 Exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. could not be denied merely because the declaration on non-availment of input-stage Modvat credit was questioned, when the record showed no evidence that credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A had actually been taken by the merchant-exporter or transferees. The fact that the exported goods were themselves exempt from central excise duty was not controverted, and the alleged breach of the notification condition was therefore not established. On that basis, the penalty imposed could not be sustained. en-us Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:44:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110523 Exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. could not be denied merely because the declaration on non-availment of input-stage Modvat credit was questioned, when the record showed no evidence that credit under Rule 56A or Rule 57A had actually been taken by the merchant-exporter or transferees. The fact that the exported goods were themselves exempt from central excise duty was not controverted, and the alleged breach of the notification condition was therefore not established. On that basis, the penalty imposed could not be sustained. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110523