Judgment:
1. Perused the records and heard both sides. The case relates to imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules. The charge against the appellant is that it exported goods without following the correct procedure of Executing Bond. Reference in this connection is made in the adjudication order to the supplementary instructions of September 2001 of the Central Board of Excise & Customs. The contention of the learned Counsel is that export took place during the period July to August 2001, before the Supplementary instructions were issued. It is also being pointed out that appellant had cleared the export goods from its factory under ARE-1 form and that form had been signed by the jurisdictional Central Excise Officer. Thus, full facts about the procedure being followed by the assessee were known to the Central Excise authorities. Learned Counsel further emphasized that the goods in question had been exported and the proof of export had been accepted by the Revenue. According to the learned Counsel, in view of these facts and circumstances, imposition of penalty was not justified at all.
2. The export of the goods was under document approved by Central Excise authorities. It is not fair or proper on the part of the authorities to subsequently take a view that the appellant has not followed the correct procedure. That apart, the instructions relied upon in the order came to be issued subsequent to the export. Export of the goods is not being doubted. In these circumstances, the imposition of penalty is grossly unwarranted. It is further to be noticed that Rule 25 relates to confiscation and penalty and the quantity of penalty provided is "not exceeding the duty of the excise payable on the goods". In the present case, no duty is due. Therefore, no penalty could be imposed; 3. In view of what is stated above, the appeal is allowed after setting aside the impugned order. Appellant shall be entitled to consequential relief, if any.