https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161010 Clearances to SEZ supported by ARE-1 endorsements and departmental permission were treated as substantially compliant, with the only lapse being non-furnishing of the prescribed letter of undertaking. That omission was characterised as a procedural breach rather than a failure of the substantive export requirement, and a limited penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held sustainable. The objection that the show cause notice did not specifically propose Rule 27 penalty was rejected because the proceedings centred on the admitted procedural violation, so the penalty was not set aside. Revenue's appeals and the cross-objections both failed. en-us Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 May 2017 10:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161010 Clearances to SEZ supported by ARE-1 endorsements and departmental permission were treated as substantially compliant, with the only lapse being non-furnishing of the prescribed letter of undertaking. That omission was characterised as a procedural breach rather than a failure of the substantive export requirement, and a limited penalty under Rule 27 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was held sustainable. The objection that the show cause notice did not specifically propose Rule 27 penalty was rejected because the proceedings centred on the admitted procedural violation, so the penalty was not set aside. Revenue's appeals and the cross-objections both failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161010