https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465051 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that while the appellant rightly became liable to differential export duty due to lower actual moisture content and consequent higher export realization, such duty and interest had already been discharged and were not in dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the adjudicating authority erred in not extending the statutory option to pay a reduced penalty at 25%, and held that the penalty already paid at 25% sufficed in law. It further held that confiscation and redemption fine in respect of goods already exported, with export proceeds realized, were unsustainable. Confiscation, redemption fine, and excess penalty were set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 20:56:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465051 CESTAT Kolkata allowed the appeal, holding that while the appellant rightly became liable to differential export duty due to lower actual moisture content and consequent higher export realization, such duty and interest had already been discharged and were not in dispute. The Tribunal ruled that the adjudicating authority erred in not extending the statutory option to pay a reduced penalty at 25%, and held that the penalty already paid at 25% sufficed in law. It further held that confiscation and redemption fine in respect of goods already exported, with export proceeds realized, were unsustainable. Confiscation, redemption fine, and excess penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 19 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465051