https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344406 Failure to obtain Form I and the countersignature under the concessional removal procedure was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive breach, where the goods were cleared under ARE-3 forms, receipt was endorsed by the consignee-end officers, and the recipient units actually used the goods for the intended purpose and exported the finished products. Because the essential conditions for the concessional benefit were satisfied, the omission could not justify denial of exemption or support the duty demand. On that basis, the demand, interest, and penalties were not sustainable. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Aug 2017 16:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344406 Failure to obtain Form I and the countersignature under the concessional removal procedure was treated as a procedural lapse, not a substantive breach, where the goods were cleared under ARE-3 forms, receipt was endorsed by the consignee-end officers, and the recipient units actually used the goods for the intended purpose and exported the finished products. Because the essential conditions for the concessional benefit were satisfied, the omission could not justify denial of exemption or support the duty demand. On that basis, the demand, interest, and penalties were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=344406