https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217606 A demand raised for non-furnishing of proof of export under a bond was treated as enforcement of the bond obligation, not as a routine non-levy or short-levy demand. On that basis, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable and the limitation objection failed. The prescribed proof of export had to be filed in the manner required by the governing circular, which was treated as binding. An admittance memo, or any alleged lapse by Customs, could not substitute the required proof or relieve the exporter of compliance. The confirmed duty demand was therefore sustained and the appellate remand set aside. en-us Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217606 A demand raised for non-furnishing of proof of export under a bond was treated as enforcement of the bond obligation, not as a routine non-levy or short-levy demand. On that basis, Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was held inapplicable and the limitation objection failed. The prescribed proof of export had to be filed in the manner required by the governing circular, which was treated as binding. An admittance memo, or any alleged lapse by Customs, could not substitute the required proof or relieve the exporter of compliance. The confirmed duty demand was therefore sustained and the appellate remand set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217606