9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In fact, out of the 35 Bills of Entry involved, 31 could be finalised. The adjudicating authority took a fair decision and imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. This amount has already been paid by the appellant. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not establish any ground for enhancing the penalty to the maximum of Rs. 50,000/- per Bill of Entry yet to be finalised. In the case of M/S ESSAR OIL LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2015 (5) TMI 942 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD ], it was held by the Tribunal that when there is some delay in furnishing the documents and there is no revenue implication, penalty is not called for. Appeal allowed. - Hon ble Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member(Judicial) For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the Order-in-Original dated 20.10.2017 wherein after considering the fact that the same is a procedural lapse, imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the Appellant. Being aggrieved, the Department filed Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for enhancement of penalty. The Appellant has also filed cross-objection before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the Appeal filed by the Department and held that since 4 Bills of Entry out of 35 Bills of Entry were not finally assessed till the date of passing of impugned order, therefore penalty of 2,00,000 (50,000 X 4) would be legal and proper under the provisions of Regulation 5 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011. The Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty to Rs. 50,000/- for each of the 4(four) bills of entry which remained to be finalised. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any reason as to why it was necessary to impose the maximum penalty in this case. It is not the case of the department that the appellant had delayed submission of documents deliberately or with any mala fide intention. 5.2 There is no revenue involved in the whole case and, at best, the matter relates to some procedural lapses. 5.3 Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, which relates to provisional assessment, does not prescribe any time limit for finalisation of provisional assessment. 5.4 In the reply dated 27-10-2017 to the Show Cause Notice, the Appellant had sought condonation of delay in furnishi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount has already been paid by the appellant. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not establish any ground for enhancing the penalty to the maximum of Rs. 50,000/- per Bill of Entry yet to be finalised. 9. In the case of Essar Oil Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Jamnagar [2015 (329) E.L.T. 401 (Tri. - Ahd.)], it was held by the Tribunal that when there is some delay in furnishing the documents and there is no revenue implication, penalty is not called for. 10. I, therefore, allow this Appeal by setting aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 31.10.2018 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the Order dated 20.10.2017 of the Original Authority. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Operative part of the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
