https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170640 Drawback was unavailable for exports made during 2006-07 to 31-8-2010 where the goods were manufactured with inputs procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2), because the then-applicable drawback notifications expressly excluded such goods and the later 2010 notification operated only prospectively from 20-9-2010. The recovery challenge therefore failed on drawback. Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act was not sustainable against the manufacturer because the record did not show misdeclaration, connivance, or other documentary proof of culpable involvement in the improper claim. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 May 2015 10:51:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170640 Drawback was unavailable for exports made during 2006-07 to 31-8-2010 where the goods were manufactured with inputs procured without payment of duty under Rule 19(2), because the then-applicable drawback notifications expressly excluded such goods and the later 2010 notification operated only prospectively from 20-9-2010. The recovery challenge therefore failed on drawback. Penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act was not sustainable against the manufacturer because the record did not show misdeclaration, connivance, or other documentary proof of culpable involvement in the improper claim. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=170640