https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367172 For a 100% Export Oriented Unit, refund of duty on destroyed rejected inputs and expired goods could not be denied merely because prior permission of Customs was not obtained when the destruction was genuine, intimation had been given, and no diversion into the domestic tariff area was alleged. The amended destruction scheme treated intimation for in-unit destruction and prior permission for destruction outside the unit as verification safeguards, not substantive conditions, once duty had already been paid on removal for destruction. The denial of refund for absence of prior permission was therefore treated as a procedural lapse, and the refund rejection was set aside. en-us Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367172 For a 100% Export Oriented Unit, refund of duty on destroyed rejected inputs and expired goods could not be denied merely because prior permission of Customs was not obtained when the destruction was genuine, intimation had been given, and no diversion into the domestic tariff area was alleged. The amended destruction scheme treated intimation for in-unit destruction and prior permission for destruction outside the unit as verification safeguards, not substantive conditions, once duty had already been paid on removal for destruction. The denial of refund for absence of prior permission was therefore treated as a procedural lapse, and the refund rejection was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 14 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367172