9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he ld. adjudicating authority has considered the issue and imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- for the violations, if any, committed by the appellant. It is observed that 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 - 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. The penalty of Rs.15,000/- imposed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Duty Assessment) Regulations, 2011, which were accepted by the then Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Customs, while allowing for 'provisional assessment . The appellant, in the said PD Bonds, had undertaken to submit all the desired documents within one month. 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 dated 12.04.2016 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. adjudic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the said PD Bonds had undertaken to submit all the desired documents within one month. On the ground that the appellant had not submitted the requisite documents within the prescribed time period 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 procedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment 7. Aggrieved by the above order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant has filed the present appeal. 8. None appeared on behalf of the appellant. However, they have submitted a written submission 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 with the consent of ld.A.R. for the Revene. 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. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the contention of the Respondent that maximum penalty ought to have been imposed on the Appellant in all the 8 cases which were pending finalization, is contrary to statute and 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 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - per Bill of Entry yet to be finalised. 12.1 .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. 12.2. 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 25-10-2017 of the Original Authority. 12.3. 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, Kolkat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
