https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273032 The expression "twelve calendar months" in Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) was construed as ending on 31 December of the year of issue, so an undertaking executed in January 2012 remained valid only until 31 December 2012. Even so, where the goods were admittedly exported and the exports were genuine, the procedural lapse in making exports after expiry of the undertaking was treated as technical only. The purpose of the requirement was to prevent diversion of goods under the guise of export, and that purpose was not defeated on the facts. Duty demand and consequential penal detriment were therefore not sustainable. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Apr 2019 16:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273032 The expression "twelve calendar months" in Notification No. 42/2001-CE(NT) was construed as ending on 31 December of the year of issue, so an undertaking executed in January 2012 remained valid only until 31 December 2012. Even so, where the goods were admittedly exported and the exports were genuine, the procedural lapse in making exports after expiry of the undertaking was treated as technical only. The purpose of the requirement was to prevent diversion of goods under the guise of export, and that purpose was not defeated on the facts. Duty demand and consequential penal detriment were therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 01 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273032