Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Commissioner Of Customs vs Essar Steel Ltd. on 17 February, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(168)ELT374(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. This is Revenue's appeal directed against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeal of the respondents against the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner was allowed. In the order-in-original on applying the provisions of Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 it was held that since the respondents had failed to file a Bill of Entry for home consumption within 30 days from the date of receipt of the material they were liable to penalty, under Section 117 of the Act. Consequently penalty of Rs. 7,000/- was imposed (Rs. 1,000/- for each transhipment permit consignment). The adjudication was done ex parte.
2. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said order-in-original. Hence the instant appeal to the Tribunal by the Revenue.
3. Heard both sides.
4. In the appeal memorandum it is contended that failure to file a Bill of Entry within 30 days tantamounts to violation of the provisions of Section 48 of the Customs Act and consequently, the importers are required to be penalised under Section 117 of the Customs Act. On reading the provisions contained in the said Section 48, no such conclusions can be deduced. In the event there is a failure to file a Bill of Entry within 30 days or such other extended period as may be allowed, the custodian acquires the right to dispose off the goods, after due notice to the importer. The section does not contain any penal consequences in the event a Bill of Entry is not filed within the time stipulated.
5. Accordingly, I uphold the impugned orders-in-appeal and reject the Revenue's appeal.