https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209738 Penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable for non-filing of Annexure 19 in relation to export of goods because the filing obligation arose only from supplementary instructions, not from a substantive requirement under Rule 19 or the export notification. Rule 31 was treated as permitting only incidental or supplementary instructions consistent with the Act and Rules. As the relevant information was already available with the Revenue and no revenue loss was shown, the lapse was treated as technical or venial, and general penalty under Rule 27 was set aside. en-us Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209738 Penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held unsustainable for non-filing of Annexure 19 in relation to export of goods because the filing obligation arose only from supplementary instructions, not from a substantive requirement under Rule 19 or the export notification. Rule 31 was treated as permitting only incidental or supplementary instructions consistent with the Act and Rules. As the relevant information was already available with the Revenue and no revenue loss was shown, the lapse was treated as technical or venial, and general penalty under Rule 27 was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209738