https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754716 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant. It determined that penalizing for the procedural lapse of non-renewal of the Letter of Undertaking (LUT) was unjust, given that the actual export of goods was not disputed. Emphasizing procedural justice and substantive rights, the Tribunal aligned with the principles of judicial discretion in penalty imposition, referencing the Apex Court's guidance. The Tribunal concluded that penalties under sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were unwarranted, as the authorities cannot exceed the allegations in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) to enhance the case. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754716 The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, providing consequential relief to the appellant. It determined that penalizing for the procedural lapse of non-renewal of the Letter of Undertaking (LUT) was unjust, given that the actual export of goods was not disputed. Emphasizing procedural justice and substantive rights, the Tribunal aligned with the principles of judicial discretion in penalty imposition, referencing the Apex Court's guidance. The Tribunal concluded that penalties under sec. 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, were unwarranted, as the authorities cannot exceed the allegations in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) to enhance the case. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 28 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754716