9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suance of a show-cause notice proposing actions for violation of Warehouse (Custody Handling of Goods) Regulations, 2016. The Department after conducting inquiry even though endorsed a copy of the same to the appellant; however, notice was not issued to the appellant proposing actions on the basis of the said report for alleged violation of Warehouse (Custody Handling of Goods) Regulations, 2016. There is a violation of principles of natural justice - matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to initiate the proceedings afresh if so inclined by way of issuance of the show-cause notice and observing principles of natural justice in deciding the case afresh - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Dr. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the appellant was suspended on 03.04.2019. The appellant also surrendered their licence on 08.04.2019 but it was not accepted by the Department due to pendency of inquiry against them. Inquiry report was submitted on 08.07.2019 alleging violation of various provisions of the said Warehousing Regulations, 2016. Copy of the inquiry report was endorsed to the appellant and a personal hearing was allowed by the adjudicating authority. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority cancelled the private warehousing licence and also imposed penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence the present appeal. 3. At the outset, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that imposition of penalty on the appellant under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962 for violations of various Regulations is justified. Learned AR for the Revenue submits that mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. In support, he refers to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. CC, Bangalore [2012(283) ELT 567 (Tri. Bang.)] and Welspun Maxsteel Ltd. Vs. CC (Preventive), Mumbai [2015(327) ELT 518 (Tri. Mum.)]. 5. Heard both sides and perused records. 6. I find force in the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant inasmuch as the show-cause notice issued proposing confiscation of the goods lying outside the bonded area cannot suffice the requirement of imposition of penalty without issuanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
