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>Tribunal Overturns Confiscation & Penalties, Grants Relief to M/s Kaka Carpets</h1> <h3>M/s Kaka Carpets, M/s Yadavendra Kumar Roy, M/s Rita Roy Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi</h3> M/s Kaka Carpets, M/s Yadavendra Kumar Roy, M/s Rita Roy Versus Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi - 2020 (373) E.L.T. 286 (Tri. - ... Issues:1. Confiscation of exported carpets with redemption fine and penalties imposed.2. Reduction of drawback claim by the Commissioner.3. Discrepancies in export documents leading to confiscation and penalties.4. Challenge of the Adjudicating Authority's order before the Tribunal.5. Allegations of misdeclaration and software malfunction.6. Market inquiries affecting the value of exported goods.7. Decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals.Analysis:1. The appeals arose from an order confiscating exported carpets with an option for release on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalties. The Commissioner reduced the drawback claim and imposed penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal noted the common impugned order and proceeded to address the issues raised by the parties.2. M/s Kaka Carpets, a partnership firm, engaged in carpet manufacturing and export, faced discrepancies in export documents due to a software malfunction. Corrective measures were taken promptly, but the Customs Authority initially rejected the revised documents. Subsequently, after 100% examination, the goods were found to be in order. The Commissioner alleged misdeclaration and contravention of the law, leading to the confiscation and penalties.3. During adjudication, the appellants argued that they rectified the mistake by submitting correct documents promptly. They contended that the revised documents aligned with the actual export values, as evidenced by bank release certificates. The Adjudicating Authority, however, upheld the impugned orders, prompting the appeal before the Tribunal.4. The Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner's findings, noting that the software malfunction caused the initial discrepancies in the documents. The appellants acted promptly to rectify the errors, and the revised documents accurately reflected the export consignment details. The Tribunal concluded that no malafide intent was present, making confiscation and penalties unwarranted.5. Regarding the value of the goods, the Commissioner relied on market inquiries to challenge the declared value. However, the appellants provided Bank Release Certificates supporting the actual realization of the exported goods, which went undisputed. The Tribunal held that the declared value should be accepted, entitling the appellants to the drawback claim based on the declared value.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing all three appeals and granting consequential relief to the appellants. The decision highlighted the lack of malafide intent, the accuracy of the revised documents, and the validity of the declared value supported by bank records. The Tribunal's decision favored the appellants, overturning the confiscation and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
