Page 304 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

286 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
benefit of lesser rate of duty. We, therefore, set aside the confiscation and
consequently the redemption fine imposed on them in both the appeals as
well as the penalty.”
7. In view of my discussion above, I am of the considered view that the
impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore I set aside the impugned
order in totality and allow the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief, if
any.
(Order was pronounced in open Court on 27-1-2020)
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 286 (Tri. - All.)
IN THE CESTAT, REGIONAL BENCH, ALLAHABAD
[COURT NO. I]
Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Anil G. Shakkarwar,
Member (T)
KAKA CARPETS
Versus
COMMR. OF C. EX. (ADJUDICATION), NEW DELHI
Final Order Nos. C/A/70115-70117/2020-CU(DB), dated 21-1-2020 in Appeal Nos.
C/204-206/2012
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration - Generation of wrong doc-
uments due to defect in inventory software - Confiscation on the ground that
assessee failed to explain as to how software malfunctioned and it should have
been careful while preparing export documents - First set of documents filed
by assessee inadvertently generated wrong set - Assessee on being pointed out
by customs house agent immediately placed correct document before Customs
Authority on same very date - No mala fide attributable to assessee so as to
confiscate export consignment or to impose penalty upon them - Second set
filed by appellants correctly covered all aspects of export consignment includ-
ing quantity, quality description and value, etc. - Confiscation and penalty not
called for - Sections 111 and 114 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 5]
Valuation (Customs) - Rejection of declared value and reduction of
drawback claim - Finding of Commissioner based on market inquiries - Mar-
ket inquiries by itself could not be held as sufficient to reject value of exported
goods - Assessee placed on record BRC’s indicating and evidencing total reali-
zation of exported goods - Value of goods cannot be doubted and declared
value to be accepted - Drawback claim to be calculated at declared value - Sec-
tions 14 and 28 of Customs Act, 1962. [para 6]
Appeals allowed
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Nikhil Agarwal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Anupam Kumar Tiwari, Authorised Repre-
sentative, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - All the appeals are being
disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order
passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), New Delhi vide
which he has confiscated the exported carpets with an option to the appellant to
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  304