9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... visional assessment while submitting their reply to the show cause notice. Thus, I find that the penalty of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) imposed by the Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As the said issue has already been settled by this Tribunal, therefore, following the precedent decision of this Tribunal, it is held that the order of the ld.Commissioner ( Appeals ) is not sustainable on the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR.ASHOK JINDAL , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri Joy Bhora , Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri A. K. Choudhary , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok Jindal : T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yam Steel Industries Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Bhubaneswar vide Final Order No.75020/2024 dated 10.01.2024. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 5. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On considering the submissions made from both the sides, I find that on similar set of facts, the said issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Shyam Steel Industries Limited (supra), wherein this Tribunal has held as under : 8. From the records it is seen that the appellant has imported coal through 10 (ten) Bills of Entry and the same were provisionally assessed for want of documents. The appellant has already submitted documents in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 19 4 took a fair decision and imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- which comes to Rs. 2,500/- for each of the remaining 8 Bills of Entry yet to be finalised for want of all the documents. 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. 10. 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. 11. I, therefore, allow this appeal by setting aside the Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
