TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the export duty was paid on this assessable value. Subsequently, it was found that the moisture content was only 7.1%. Because of this, the appellant has realized higher value from the overseas importer. This has resulted in a short payment of export duty to the extent of Rs.34,66,009/-. 2. A show-cause notice was issued on 08-10- 2013, seeking to know as to why the differential export duty should not be demanded and as to why the goods should not be confiscated. The appellant paid the entire duty of Rs.34,66,009/-, along with the interest of Rs.15,51,039/-, and sent a letter to the officials to drop the penalty and confiscation proposals. 3. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, appropriated the amounts already paid and im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to give the 25% option if it is found that the amount has been paid along with interest. Relying on this case law, he submits that in the present case also, it should be held that the party has paid 25% penalty correctly, though it has been paid after 30 days' time. 9. In respect of redemption fine, he submits that since the goods were already exported, they were not available for confiscation by the Department. He realises on the case law of Commissioner of Customs, CE & ST, Hyderabad-II v. G.M.K. Products Pvt. Ltd. [2020 (373) E.L.T. 692 (Tri. - Hyd.)] and Sunil Kumar Gilra v. Commissioner of Customs (Exp.), Nhava Sheva [2019 (370) E.L.T. 1553] wherein it has been held that if the goods have already been exported and are not availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2010 (255) E.L.T. 393 (Guj.)] "11. Before parting, we observe that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be said to be a non-speaking and non-reasoned order. The authorities cited by Mr. Oza in support of his submission that a nonspeaking order is passed by the Tribunal and hence it deserves to be dismissed, were duly considered by us and we are of the view that they are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal while dismissing the Departmental Appeal observed that the quantum of the penalty is to the extent at around 25% of the duty amount and does not call for any interference. The Tribunal is taking consistent view in the matters of penalty levied under Section 11AC and when the duty amount is paid before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sent case, if the goods are held liable for confiscation under Section 113 and the option is given under Section 125 the exporter may not choose the option at all and he does not have to pay the redemption fine. On the other hand, if he chooses to pay the redemption fine then the department is bound to give him possession of the goods which is impossible as the goods have already left the country. For this reason also, the confiscation under Section 113 and the redemption fine under Section 125 are not sustainable as per law in respect of exported goods. Consequently, the penalty under Section 114 also cannot sustain. The penalty imposed by the original authority under Section 114A also is unsustainable as this section provides for "penalty....