9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut did not turn up. It is noted that the effect of non-filing of authorization would apply in respect of the three consignees only. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that after thorough discussions that in this factual background none of the clauses of Section 111 would be invoked and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 112 is set aside. It is noted that the authorised representative made an elaborate submission on this issue but no appeal was filed by the Revenue - it is fit case that the penalty should be set aside after giving a caution to the appellant and they should avoid such irregularity in future, if any - Decided in favour of assessee. - C/00187/2012 - - - Dated:- 26-6-2013 - Shri P.K. Das, J. For the Appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d penalty under Section 112 is set aside. However, penalty under Section 117 was upheld and rduced to Rs.5,000/-. 3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is a courier company and registered under Regulation 1998 and the imposition of penalty even a meager amount would affect their business and, therefore, Tribunal may accept their appeal. He submits that it is apparent from the impugned order that as soon as the goods arrive in the airport they filed the bill of entry as per manifest and the goods are detained by the Customs authorities on the same date. It is also submitted that as per the regular practice, after filing the bill of entry, they obtained their authorisation and release the goods on the bas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther submits that clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 158 any person, who contravenes any provisions of Rule or Regulations, such contravention, shall be liable to a penalty. Hence, penalty under Section 117 cannot be sustained. 4. The learned authorised representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the applicant is a Registered Courier Agency, is required to obtain the authorization before filing of the bill of entry and Regulation 13(a) would apply. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a clear case of Section111 and penalty under Section 112 is sustainable [without giving a declaration in bills of entry in this context. The value of the goods declared is incorrect and, therefore, Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is contended that after filing of the bill of entry, they obtained the authorization for clearance of the goods as per normal practice. Be that as it may, it is seen that eight consignees appared and goods were cleared to them. Apart from that, eight consignees also appeared and disowned the goods. In any event, three consignees are non-existent and only one person received the notice but did not turn up. It is noted that the effect of non-filing of authorization would apply in respect of the three consignees only. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that after thorough discussions that in this factual background none of the clauses of Section 111 would be invoked and, therefore, imposition of penalty under Section 112 is set aside. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
