https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287188 The appeal was allowed on 29-11-2017 as the Member (J) found that the appellant had complied with all conditions of the relevant notification and rules. Despite not meeting the sample drawal condition, the benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) should not have been denied as the goods were used in production and export as intended. The imposition of the sample drawal condition was considered extraneous, and the denial of benefits based on non-compliance was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the duty demand confirmation was set aside. en-us Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 10:52:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287188 The appeal was allowed on 29-11-2017 as the Member (J) found that the appellant had complied with all conditions of the relevant notification and rules. Despite not meeting the sample drawal condition, the benefit of Notification No. 43/2001-C.E. (N.T.) should not have been denied as the goods were used in production and export as intended. The imposition of the sample drawal condition was considered extraneous, and the denial of benefits based on non-compliance was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the duty demand confirmation was set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 29 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287188