TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal Reverses Commissioner's Decision on Ceramic Tiles Confiscation and Penalty</h1> <h3>GANESH BATH GALLERY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (PREVENTIVE)</h3> The Appellate Tribunal overturned the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation and penalty on imported ceramic tiles due to ... Demand of differential duty - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - MRP stickers not affixed - Held that:- Goods stand confiscated and penalty imposed on the technical ground that all the goods imported by the appellant were not having MRP stickers. The Appellate Authority has himself observed that the stickers may get withered away on account of many reasons. In such scenario, we find no justification for imparting any mala fide to the appellant so as not to paste the MRP stickers on the goods. Accordingly, we set aside the confiscation of the imported items as also imposition of penalty - Decide din favour of assessee. Issues: Appeal against the order dropping the demand of differential duty but upholding the confiscation and penalty on imported ceramic tiles due to missing MRP stickers.Analysis:1. Confiscation of Goods and Penalty Upheld: The Commissioner (Appeals) dropped the demand for differential duty but upheld the confiscation of imported ceramic tiles due to missing MRP stickers. The Commissioner found that the appellant failed to comply with the provisions of relevant notifications and acts, leading to the confiscation and penalty under Section 112(a) and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner considered the absence of MRP stickers on many packets as a clear violation, indicating a lack of bona fide on the part of the appellant. The Commissioner deemed the confiscation and penalty as legal and proper based on non-compliance with statutory provisions.2. Appellate Tribunal's Decision: The Appellate Tribunal, upon reviewing the case, found no justification to attribute any mala fide intent to the appellant for the missing MRP stickers on the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that the stickers might have worn off due to various reasons, rejecting the notion of deliberate non-compliance. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the imported items and the imposition of the penalty. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the absence of MRP stickers alone should not lead to confiscation and penalty if there is no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or violation of statutory provisions.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal overturned the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the confiscation and penalty on imported ceramic tiles due to missing MRP stickers. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of mala fide intent on the part of the appellant and ruled in favor of setting aside the confiscation and penalty, highlighting the importance of considering all circumstances before imposing such sanctions.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
