9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 602X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of 7 cases under Rule 10A of the FTT Rules, 1979 for delayed submission of return and Rs 2.50 lakh under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 for late payment of FTT in respect of 19 cases. He also ordered filing separate refund claim for Rs. 2,13,500/- which were paid by both M/s. Air Seychelles and M/s. Air India resulting in double payment for the month of March, April May, 1998. The Commissioner (A) while upholding the original order in general reduced the total penalty from Rs. 2.64 lakh to Rs. 1.50 lakh. 3. The applicants in their Revision Application have sought waiver of penalty on account of the fact that there were shortage of staff, that the flights were scheduled at night time and there is no malafide involved. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are liable to pay penalty which shall not be less than one fifth but which may extend to three times of the amount of tax not so paid to the credit of the Central Government. And in terms of Rules 10A(1) of the FTT Rules, 1979 the applicants are liable to a penalty not less than Rupees two thousand but which may extend to Rupees twenty thousand and to a further penalty not exceeding Rupees five hundred for each day s delay after the date when the return was due. Hence under Rule 15(3) of the FTT Rules, 1979 suo-moto review SCN of even number dated 21-3-2001 was issued to M/s. Jet Air Ltd. (GSA Air Seychelles). 6. Shri B.N. Goswamy, Advocate, vide his reply to the Show Cause Notice (which was received on 26-04-2001) by placing reliance on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mended by Notification No. 1/94-FTT dated 12-8-1994 and brought into force w.e.f. 1-9-1994 refers) between July 95 and December 97. That the Delhi High Court while deciding cases arising out of IATT as well as FTT have held that the liability imposed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 (for FTT) and Section 46(3) of the Finance Act, 1989 (for IATT) are in the nature of strict liability offence. Both these Sections 38(3) and 46(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 and 1989 respectively are pari materia one dealing with FTT and the other with IATT. 9. The Hon ble Delhi High Court in CWP No. 2400/97 decided on 4-11-1997 [reported in 1998 (l) AD (Delhi) 876 J] have upheld order No. 339/97, dated 31-3-1997 passed by the Govt. [reported in 1997 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and clearly establishes the non-application of mind to the provisions of the statute by these authorities. Hence Govt. perforce has to set aside these orders which are improper and illegal. Though normally the matter could be remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration, keeping in view the time spent so far, Govt. would determine the penalty at Rs. 5,10,000/- (Rupees five lakh and ten thousand only) being one fifth of the FTT deposited belatedly. 11. In so far as the imposition of penalty under Rule 10A of the FTT Rules, 1979 is concerned, no justification has been given for imposing the paltry sum of Rs. 14,000/- (fourteen thousand only) by the original authority in respect of delay in submission of FTT returns by 6 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
