https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758939 Non-issuance of ARE-2 for de-oiled cake manufactured using duty-free hexane under Rule 19(2) did not, on these facts, justify denial of drawback or imposition of penalty. The Court held that the 1% drawback claimed by the merchant exporter related only to the customs component, not the central excise component, so no double benefit arose. It further found no conclusive evidence of intention or abetment by the petitioner, and mere omission to issue ARE-2 could not by itself establish a breach warranting penalty. The revisional order was therefore set aside to that extent. en-us Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Sep 2024 07:25:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758939 Non-issuance of ARE-2 for de-oiled cake manufactured using duty-free hexane under Rule 19(2) did not, on these facts, justify denial of drawback or imposition of penalty. The Court held that the 1% drawback claimed by the merchant exporter related only to the customs component, not the central excise component, so no double benefit arose. It further found no conclusive evidence of intention or abetment by the petitioner, and mere omission to issue ARE-2 could not by itself establish a breach warranting penalty. The revisional order was therefore set aside to that extent. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758939