TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether duty was payable on custard powder manufactured without including it in the licence and cleared for export when the goods were in fact exported and not diverted for home consumption; (ii) whether penalty was leviable in full despite the export of the goods and absence of intent to evade duty.
Issue (i): Whether duty was payable on custard powder manufactured without including it in the licence and cleared for export when the goods were in fact exported and not diverted for home consumption.
Analysis: The undisputed material showed that the custard powder was cleared for export and had actually been exported. The demand itself was based on export invoices and shipping bills, and the departmental finding also accepted that no case had been made out of home consumption. In such circumstances, failure to follow the AR 4 procedure or to include the item in the licence was only a technical infringement and did not justify denial of the substantive benefit attached to export.
Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable and was set aside, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether penalty was leviable in full despite the export of the goods and absence of intent to evade duty.
Analysis: Since the goods were exported and not diverted for home consumption, and there was no intention to evade duty, penalty could be justified only to the limited extent of the statutory lapse in procedure. The surrounding circumstances warranted a reduction rather than complete confirmation of the penalty.
Conclusion: The penalty was reducible and was brought down from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 2,000, in favour of the assessee to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the duty demand and succeeded only in part on the penalty, resulting in relief to the assessee with the demand annulled and the penalty substantially reduced.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are actually exported and not shown to have been diverted for home consumption, procedural lapses in export formalities do not defeat the substantive benefit of export, though a limited penalty may still be imposed for the statutory omission.
TaxTMI 
