Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Trade Wings Ltd vs C.C., New Delhi on 26 April, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Customs appeal No. 113 of 2012-SM
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03/Policy/VKG/2012 dated 24.2.2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi]
Date of Hearing/decision: 26th April, 2012
1
Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Trade Wings Ltd., Appellant
Vs.
C.C., New Delhi Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Ms. Renu Jagdev, SDR Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Learned Counsel Shri Piyush Kumar submits that the appellant had no knowledge about veracity of the certificate submitted by G Card applicant who came to the employment of the appellant w.e.f. 19.5.2006. He has not only served this appellant but also served many others and left employment of the appellant on 18.8.2003. The G card was surrendered on 18.8.2003 which is apparent from page 16 of appeal folder. His prayer is that it was beyond his control to know the genuineness of educational qualification certificate of the G card applicant. The forfeiture of part of the security amounting to Rs. 20,000/- was uncalled for in these circumstances.
2. Learned Representative for Revenue supports the order passed by the learned Commissioner.
3. Heard both sides and perused the relevant documents to which attention was drawn.
4.It is surprising to know, why this appellant was penalised without bringing out his active involvement contributing to the questionable educational qualification of G card applicant. There is no circumstance brought out by the impugned order nor any cogent evidence exists to suggest that the appellant had active involvement in the allegation of no genuine certificate produced by G card applicant. No malfide of the appellant has been brought to record in clear terms. Further more, the proceedings has been based on foundation of Rule 19(8) of Customs House Agent Licensing Rules & Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations). Reading of Regulation 19(8) shows that supervision of CHA is necessity of law to ensure proper conduct of any of the employee involved in transaction of business as agent. This sub-rule is based on the principle that Agent binds his principal for all acts done by agent if those are within the knowledge of the principal. It is also prescription of Sub-rule (8) that mis-conduct of the employee should have direct nexus to the transaction of business. The sub-rule operates on a different field for which show cause notice appears to be mis-conceived for which order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and appeal is allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 3