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 Rules Procedural Lapses in Certificate of Origin Don't Block Notification Benefits for Appellant.</h1> <h3>M/s. Softel Overseas Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata</h3> M/s. Softel Overseas Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:- Benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012- Benefit of Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011Summary:The appeal was filed by M/s. Softel Overseas Private Limited against the Order-in-Appeal No. 259/Cus(Apprg)/Kol(P)/2013 dated 26/27.11.2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant sought the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 but later realized they were eligible for a lower duty rate under Notification No.46/2011-CUS dated 01.06.2011. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing discrepancies in the certificate of origin issued by the Thailand Government.Regarding the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CUS, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal due to discrepancies in the certificate of origin issued by the Thailand Government. The Ld. Commissioner highlighted that the certificate did not contain the necessary invoice numbers and tick marks as required by the notification. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this assessment, noting that the relevant invoice number was indicated in the certificate. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that the original consignment was split into five smaller imports, explaining the subdivision of the invoice number into A, B, C, D, and E. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural lapses should not prevent a substantive benefit if no prejudice is caused.In relation to the benefit of Notification No.46/2011-CUS, the Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the appeal. The Tribunal held that the omission in the certificate of origin did not violate any provisions that would warrant denial of the exemption. It was established that a clerical error, if any, should not deprive the appellant of the benefit entitled to them. The Tribunal cited precedents to support the principle that procedural formalities should not impede the grant of a substantive benefit.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal with consequential relief as per law.
TaxTMI 