2025-VIL-717-CESTAT-CHE-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-717-CESTAT-CHE-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Special Warehouse License, Penalty under Section 112(a), Maintainability of Appeal - Appellant filed an application for a special bonded warehouse license under Section 58A of the Customs Act, 1962, which was rejected by the Principal Commissioner of Customs on the ground that the appellant had been previously penalized under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act - Whether the present appeal is maintainable before the CESTAT – HELD - The language of Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act allows an appeal to the Tribunal by any person aggrieved by "any decision or order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority." The CESTAT noted that the Principal Commissioner's decision to reject the license application was a final decision that affected the appellant's rights, and hence, it qualified as an order passed by an adjudicating authority under the Customs Act. The CESTAT relied on various judicial precedents, including the decisions of the Supreme Court, to hold that even if the order is communicated through a letter or an informal communication, it can still be considered an appealable order if it finally decides the rights of the assessee. The CESTAT held that denying an initial license could be equally or more severe than cancelling an existing one, and hence, the legislature could not have intended to create an anomaly by providing an appeal for one and not the other - The appeal is allowed - Whether the rejection of the appellant's special warehouse license application on account of a prior penalty under Section 112(a) is legally sustainable – HELD - The rejection of the appellant's special warehouse license application on account of a prior penalty under Section 112(a) is not legally sustainable. The Customs Act clearly distinguishes between contraventions that attract civil penalties and offences that attract criminal prosecution. The CESTAT relied on the decision in Kundan Care Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, wherein it was held that a penalty under Section 112 is not the same as being "penalized for an offence" under the Customs Act. The CESTAT noted that the appellant had not been prosecuted or convicted for any offence under the Customs Act, and the penalty under Section 112(a) was for a wrong claim of exemption, which is a civil contravention and not an offence. The CESTAT further observed that even if the penalty under Section 112(a) is considered an "offence" for the purposes of Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Special Warehousing Licensing Regulations, 2016, the Principal Commissioner should have examined the nature and gravity of the appellant's past violation and exercised discretion judiciously instead of treating the Regulation as an absolute bar - the impugned order is set aside and the Principal Commissioner is directed to grant the special warehouse license to the appellant - The appeal is allowed.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Biweekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?