https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122187 Duty demand could not be sustained merely because the exporter did not strictly follow the prescribed export procedure under Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, where the goods were in fact exported under proper shipping bills and there was no dispute about the exports having taken place. The procedural lapses were treated as condonable, and the absence of any penalty reinforced that the default was not substantive. On that basis, the challenge to the demand failed. en-us Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122187 Duty demand could not be sustained merely because the exporter did not strictly follow the prescribed export procedure under Rule 18 and Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, where the goods were in fact exported under proper shipping bills and there was no dispute about the exports having taken place. The procedural lapses were treated as condonable, and the absence of any penalty reinforced that the default was not substantive. On that basis, the challenge to the demand failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 05 Jan 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122187