https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4260 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was not warranted where the exporters had intimated the department about the delay, sought condonation, produced proof of export, and the duty demand was dropped. The goods were either exported or diverted for home consumption with departmental permission, and the delay was treated as condoned. In the absence of deliberate violation, revenue loss, or any substantive non-compliance with the export condition, the alleged breach of the notification did not justify penal action. The substantive export obligation had been substantially complied with, so penalty was held not leviable. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4260 Penalty under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules was not warranted where the exporters had intimated the department about the delay, sought condonation, produced proof of export, and the duty demand was dropped. The goods were either exported or diverted for home consumption with departmental permission, and the delay was treated as condoned. In the absence of deliberate violation, revenue loss, or any substantive non-compliance with the export condition, the alleged breach of the notification did not justify penal action. The substantive export obligation had been substantially complied with, so penalty was held not leviable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4260