9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... delay in submission of the documents. It is found that the ld. adjudicating authority has considered the issue and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- for the violations, if any, committed by the appellant. This penalty is sufficient for the procedural violations committed by the appellant. Similar view has been taken by this tribunal and a lesser penalty has been confirmed on such procedural violations. The present case on hand is squarely covered by the decisions cited above. Thus, the penalty of Rs.10,000/- imposed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not given adequate reason for enhancing the penalty from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/- in respect of each of the 8 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th. 4. However, the appellant neither submitted the desired documents within one month from the date of provisional assessment nor had asked for any extension of time for production of same after one month from the date of provisional assessment. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice bearing C. No. VIII-CUS (10) 88/ Shyam Metallics/DMR/ 2016/1056 dated 06.04.2016 was issued to the appellant for contravention of the provisions of Regulations as provided in the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011. 5. On adjudication, the ld. adjudicating authority has passed the Order-in-Original No. AC/JJPR/29/2017 dated 25.10.2017, wherein he has observed that the appellant, while filing Bill(s) of Entry had not submitted original/bank signed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod of one month, the ld. adjudicating authority has taken the view that the appellant had contravened the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011 in as much as they failed to submit the desired original/ Bank signed documents and other particulars within stipulated time period and thus the appellant had been found to have deliberately contravened the said provisions for which they are liable to be penalized as an act of deterrence. However, considering it as a case of procedural lapse, the ld. adjudicating authority took a lenient view and impose a penalty for contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. However, the appellant has submitted a letter dated 06th January, 2025 wherein the appellant has requested to finalize the matter on the basis of the submissions made by them. 8.1. Accordingly, the issue is taken up for decision on the basis of the available records. 9. In their written submissions filed, the appellant has urged the following grounds: - (i) The Appellant begs to submit that the issue in the present case pertains to imposition of penalty on the Appellant under Regulation No.5 of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011. Regulation 3(3) of the said regulation provides as under : Regulation 3 - (3) Where provisional assessment is allowed pending the production of any document or furnishing of any informat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be rejected by this Hon'ble Bench and the Appellant's appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. The Ld. Authorized Representative for the Revenue appearing today has reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 11. I have perused the appeal papers and other documents placed on record. I find that the appellant could not submit some of the documents required for finalisation of the provisional assessment because of the various appeals pending before the Tribunals and High Courts on the same issue. Thus, I find that the appellant cannot be faulted for the delay in submission of the documents. I find that the ld. adjudicating authority has considered the issue and imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- for the violations, if any, committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal 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 Order-in- Appeal dated 29-3-2019 of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the Order dated 1-11-2017 of the Original Authority. 12.1. A similar view has also been taken by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus. (Prev.), Bhubaneswar [Final Order No. 75020 of 2024 dated 10.01.2024 in Customs Appeal No. 75293 of 2019 CESTAT, Kolkata]. 12.2. I find that the present case on hand is squarely covered by the decisions cited above. Thus, I find that the penalty of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) imposed by the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
