Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Ikea Trading (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 9 April, 2013

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 

WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.

DIVISION BENCH

                                     Court No.2  



		 Appeal No.C/702-703/2008-Cus 



(Arising out of OIA No.(Cus-01/2007) of 48 of 2008 dt.30.07.2008  passed by the CC & CE, Allahabad)



                                  Date of hearing/Decision: 09.04.2013

                                   

Ikea Trading (India) Pvt.Ltd.			Appellant

Baranwal Carpet Manufacturing Co.                                                 

      Vs.	                                                                                 

CCE, Allahabad						Respondent 

Present for the Appellant: None Present for the Respondent: Shri V.P.Bara, DR Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO.56135-56136 PER: D.N.PANDA None present for the appellant nor is there any adjournment application. Both appeals are rolling on the board since 2008.

2. On perusal of the adjudication order, it appears that the appellant No.2 M/s.Baranwal Carpet Manufacturing Co. is engaged in the manufacture of woollen carpet for export of the same by the appellant. M/s.Ikea Trading (India)Pvt.Ltd. The manufacturer Suomotu informed the customs authority about the discrepancy in the exported consignment due some technical problem which otherwise results in mis-declaration of quantity. This is apparent from page 2 of the adjudication order. Request was made to the Customs Superintendent to call back the exported container for above reason. Accordingly containers were called back and opened. It was found that there was difference in contents in the containers and description in shipping bills. Revenue viewed that the action of both the appellants viz., manufacturer and exporter was contrary to law. Ld.Adjudicating Authority recorded in his finding that the appellant No.1 did not bring any evidence to prove that the mistake was not deliberate. Entire proceeding went against both the appellants resulting in confiscation of the contents of the containers valued at Rs.29,82,179/- with the consequence of imposition of redemption fine of Rs.1,00,000/- to redeem the goods. So also penalty of Rs.29,82,179/- was imposed on each of the appellants under section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962.

3. Ld.DR says that appellant did not come out with clean hand to prove their bonafide.

4. Heard Revenue and perused the records.

5. Record reveals that M/s.Barnwal Carpet Manufacturing Co had voluntarily approached the customs authority to call back the consignment for bonafide mistake detected by it before discovery thereof by Customs. There appears no ill design behind the consignments nor there was wilful suppression to cause prejudice to Revenue. However to prevent abuse of process of law, we direct as under:-

(1)     Redemption fine is upheld.

(2)     Penalty on each of the appellants is reduced to Rs.1 lakh.

	

6.	    Both appeals are disposed of in the above terms.

   (Dictated & pronounced in the open court)



		

                              (D.N.PANDA)

         JUDICIAL MEMBER

      

                                             

                              (MANMOHAN SINGH)

         TECHNICAL MEMBER

mk