Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Harini Freight Logistics vs Cc (Sea), Chennai - Viii on 1 November, 2017
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
C/41691/2017
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 53715/2017 dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (VIII), Chennai).
M/s. Harini Freight Logistics Appellant
Vs.
CC (Sea), Chennai - VIII Respondent
Appearance Shri Lakshmi Narayan, Consultant for the appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondents CORAM :
Honble Smt. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 01.11.2017 FINAL ORDER No. 42644/2017 Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar The issue in dispute is a fall out of penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on an action taken by the Mumbai Customs against the Mumbai Branch of the appellants. The issue therein involved an employee of their Mumbai Branch along with others were implicated in unauthorisedly taking out of the port, food stuff covered under certain Bills of Entry after out of charge order was given by the customs. An order dated 15.09.2014 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, prohibiting the Mumbai Branch of the appellants operating in Mumbai Customs Zone, which was denied by a subsequent order dated 07.10.2014. However, on appeal, Cestat, Mumbai vide Order dated 21.04.2015, set aside the order of the Commissioner (Customs) and allowed the appellant to work as Customs Broker in the Mumbai Customs Zones with immediate effect. The appeal filed by the department with the Honble High Court of Mumbai held that the order of prohibition will not operate in the light of another order dated 30.06.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The Honble High Court held that controversy involved in the appeal is of academic character and disposed of the appeal.
2. Viewed in this factual matrix, we find that the issue involved herein pertains to only a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- against the appellant, who is the parent CHA based in Chennai. In as much as the main issue and controversy which emanated in Mumbai Branch of the appellant has been set at rest, we do not find any justifiable reasons for sustaining the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed in the impugned order. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on)
(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR) (ARCHANA WADHWA)
TECHNICAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
BB
1