9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny goods been imported into the Customs Bonded Warehouse nor has any manufacturing activity taken place in it for the entire period of 9 months. Not mentioning the licensed premises as principal or additional place of business under the GST as required by CBIC s circular No. 34/2019 dated 1.10.2019 - HELD THAT:- While it is a serious typographical error to mention the wrong address in an application for the Customs warehouse licence, evidence on record shows that the correct address is Khasra No. 15/22. According to the appellant, this is also the address in its IEC which is the primary document for all imports and exports. It does appear that the appellant committed a mistake and the officer issuing the licence also did not notice - Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... careful enough and issued licence with the wrong address - it is not why the address cannot be corrected and if that is done, the correct address will match with the additional place of business declared in the GST registration. It was also careless of the appellant not to have obtained registration and uploaded documents as required on the portal. The penalty imposed on Shiv Probuild under section 117 is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- - On payment of the above fine, its private bonded warehouse licence under section 58 of the Customs Act and its manufacturing and other operations licence under section 65 of the Customs Act shall be restored and the address of the premises shall be corrected - the penalties imposed on Kuldeep and Rajkumar under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had applied for a private bonded warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act] , and also applied for permission to conduct manufacturing and other operations in a bonded warehouse under Section 65 of the Act at its premises at Khasra No. 15/24, Near Telephone Exchange Samalkha, New Delhi 110037 . Both licences were given on 30.12.2022. 3. Noticing that Shiv Probuild had violated the conditions of the licences, the Commissioner served a Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 26.9.2023 proposing to revoke its licences and also proposing to impose penalties on it and its directors. 4. The Commissioner decided the proposals in the SCN through the impugned order. Of the four violations alleged in the SCN, the Commissioner dropped the one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware of this requirement but the appellant had filed the applications manually. After learning about the requirement, it registered on the online portal. However, the Commissioner did not accept this submission. vii. The third alleged violation is that neither have any goods been imported into the Customs Bonded Warehouse nor has any manufacturing activity taken place in it for the entire period of 9 months. viii. The appellant submitted that after obtaining the licence, it was in correspondence with several people for import of goods and setting up a manufacturing unit. It also submitted that this was not a violation of any of the conditions of the licence. The Commissioner has also not accepted this submission. ix. In view of the above, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4AA but imposed penalty only under the residuary penal clause of Section 117. It provides for a penalty of an amount not exceeding Rs. 4 lakhs. The penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on Shiv Probuild and the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on each of its directors is fair and balanced. v. The impugned order may, therefore, be upheld and the appeal may be dismissed. 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. The questions to be decided by us are: a) Did Shiv Probuild violate the conditions of the licences? b) If so, was the punishment in the form of revocation of its licence and imposition of penalty on it and on its Directors Kuldeep and Rajkumar proportionate to the violations? 8. On the first ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l imports and exports. It does appear that the appellant committed a mistake and the officer issuing the licence also did not notice. However, we do not think this is not such a serious violation as to warrant cancellation of licence. 11. The second violation is not registering on the portal and not uploading the documents as required under CBIC circular 34/2019. The appellant admits that it had not done so but pleads that it was due to ignorance and after learning about this requirement, it had registered on the portal. We do find that this is a curable violation. 12. The third violation is that the appellant had not imported any goods or manufactured in the premises after obtaining the licence. This is not a violation of any provision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
