9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certified by an officer of the Central Government. The documents evidencing the issuance of IEC as well as the registration under the CGST Act /SGST Act (allocation of Goods and Service Tax Identification Number GSTIN) were undeniably documents, which emanated from the government authorities and therefore, the respondent cannot be faulted in relying upon the same. There is also no dispute that the documents such as the rent agreement and the electricity bill that were collected by the respondent from the entity in question and furnished to the CoC, are genuine documents. There are no allegations that the said documents are forged or fabricated. CoC had faulted the respondent for accepting such documents on the ground that the rent agreement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Custom Broker and had filed the aforesaid appeal before the learned CESTAT impugning the order-in-original dated 17.10.2023, whereby it s Customs Broker License (hereafter licence), was revoked. In addition, the Commissioner of Customs (hereafter CoC) had also imposed a penalty of ₹50,000/-. 3. The aforesaid punitive action was taken by the CoC on account of certain exports facilitated by the respondent which were made by the exporters, who are allegedly found to be non-existent at their principal place of business. The Directorate General of Analytics and Risk Management (hereafter DGARM) analysed the data available with it and identified certain persons whose registration under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information; (o) to (q) *** ***. 7. It is the case of the respondent that it had performed its functions diligently and had obtained the KYC documents from the concerned exporter namely M/s Shree Enterprises. However, the CoC found to the contrary and held that the respondent had not collected the relevant KYC documents as required. Accordingly, the CoC proceeded to pass the said order in original dated 17.10.2023, revoking the respondent s licence. 8. It is material to note that the allegation agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s at the material time. The learned CESTAT noted that none of the documents, which were produced by the respondent were found to be forged or fabricated. 11. Admittedly, the DGFT had issued IEC to M/s Shree Enterprises. At the material time, the GST registration for the said entity was also valid. The learned CESTAT referred to Section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which posits a presumption of genuineness of documents, that have been certified by an officer of the Central Government. The documents evidencing the issuance of IEC as well as the registration under the CGST Act /SGST Act (allocation of Goods and Service Tax Identification Number GSTIN) were undeniably documents, which emanated from the government authorities and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
