https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51991 Duty under Rule 9(2) was not exigible where export goods of a 100% EOU had been removed under bond, were accidentally damaged, promptly intimated, and were lawfully brought back to the factory with the proper officer's permission; no violation of Rule 9(1) was established, and any duty liability could arise only under the EOU removal mechanism, not by a premature demand. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also inapplicable because it was excluded for such EOU clearances, and the prescribed procedure for reporting and returning the damaged goods had been followed. Both the duty demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:46:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51991 Duty under Rule 9(2) was not exigible where export goods of a 100% EOU had been removed under bond, were accidentally damaged, promptly intimated, and were lawfully brought back to the factory with the proper officer's permission; no violation of Rule 9(1) was established, and any duty liability could arise only under the EOU removal mechanism, not by a premature demand. Penalty under Rule 173Q was also inapplicable because it was excluded for such EOU clearances, and the prescribed procedure for reporting and returning the damaged goods had been followed. Both the duty demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 10 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51991