9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 743X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this is a case wherein a nominal penalty is required to be imposed and not the maximum penalty - penalty of Rs. 1,000/- would meet the ends of justice - in favour of assessee as directed. - C/2752/2010 - A/193/2012 - Dated:- 24-2-2012 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. Mr K. Parameswaran, advocate, for the appellant Mr Ravichandran Suptd. (AR), for the Revenue [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy]. 1.1. Brief facts of the case are that the area of Container Freight Station falling under Survey Nos. 107, 108, 109 CA (Common Amenities) located at M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as CWC ), Export Promotion Industrial Park (EPIP), Whitefield, Bangalore was notified as Customs Area under Section 8(b) of the Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dated 14.12.1995, and other Circulars issued from time to time by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the Custodian of a CFS/ICD has to fulfill various conditions, among other things, the following conditions:- (i) Condition 5: Custodian shall abide by all the rules and regulations under the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) Condition 16: In case the Custodian wants to sublet any of the functions inside the Customs Area or connected with the Customs area the same should be done with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Customs and the Custodian shall remain responsible for the omissions and commissions of said agency. (iii) Condition 17: Duration of the appointment shall initially remain for 5 years and subject to the satisfaction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04.12.2006 for management, operation and maintenance of its facility at CFS, Whitefield, Bangalore. However CWC did not take prior approval of the Commissioner of Customs as required in para 18 of Notification No. 03/2001-Cus. (N.T) dated 19.02.2001. Proceedings were initiated for imposition of penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act 1962 which are culminated in the impugned order wherein a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed on the appellant. 3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submitted that no doubt the prior approval was not taken as observed in the show-cause notice. Nevertheless the very next day of entering into the Strategic Alliance, the appellant had intimated the Commissioner of Customs about the agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant time when the omission took place was only Rs. 10,000/-. Maximum penalty become Rs. 1,00,000/-w.e.f. 10.05.2008. Therefore the Commissioner should not have imposed penalty of more than Rs. 10,000/-. 4. The learned AR submits that the provisions of Section 117 of Customs Act 1962 did not require any mala fide intention or mens rea for imposition of penalty and it is a fact that as required in terms of the notification prior approval was required to be taken and it was not taken. Therefore penalty is justified. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. There is no dispute that conditions arises in para 18 of Notification No. 03/2001- Cus. (N.T) dated 19.02.2001 which require prior approval to be taken for custod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
