Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Penalty Upheld for Pet Coke Unloading Shortfall</h1> <h3>IN RE : VELLAM SHIPPING & TRADING COMPANY</h3> IN RE : VELLAM SHIPPING & TRADING COMPANY - 2014 (312) E.L.T. 997 (G. O. I.) Issues Involved:1. Short landing of cargo (Pet Coke).2. Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Consideration of bilge water in accounting for cargo shortage.4. Applicability of tolerance limits for bulk solid cargo.5. Admissibility of survey reports and other evidence.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Short Landing of Cargo (Pet Coke):The applicants were supposed to unload 43,729.30 MT of Pet Coke but only discharged 43,266.6 MT, leaving a shortfall of 462.7 MT. The original adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,55,900 under Section 116 for this shortfall. The applicants contended that the shortfall was due to the inherent moisture content in the Pet Coke, which was pumped out as bilge water during the voyage.2. Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962:Section 116 stipulates that a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of duty is imposed for any shortfall in the unloaded quantity of imported goods. The applicants argued that the penalty should not be imposed as the shortfall was due to the moisture content in the Pet Coke. However, the Government upheld the penalty, stating that the shortfall was not properly accounted for and the applicants failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support their claim.3. Consideration of Bilge Water in Accounting for Cargo Shortage:The applicants claimed that the bilge water pumped out during the voyage accounted for the shortfall in the Pet Coke. They provided records from the Deck Log Book and a Joint Draught Survey Report indicating that 643.190 CBM of water was pumped out. However, the Government observed that there was no correlation between the bilge water and the shortfall of Pet Coke. The applicants did not provide relevant contracts, purchase orders, invoices, or bills of lading indicating the moisture content in the cargo.4. Applicability of Tolerance Limits for Bulk Solid Cargo:The applicants argued for a 1% tolerance limit, which would reduce the shortfall to 25.5 MT. They cited a previous case where such a tolerance limit was allowed. However, the Government noted that the C.B.E. & C. Circular 96/2002-Cus., dated 27-12-2002, only refers to bulk liquid cargo and does not apply to bulk solid cargo like Pet Coke. Therefore, the plea for a tolerance limit was not accepted.5. Admissibility of Survey Reports and Other Evidence:The applicants relied on a Joint Draught Survey Report and the Statement of Facts, which indicated the quantity of water pumped out. They also cited judicial precedents to support their case. However, the Government noted that these documents were not countersigned by Customs authorities and did not provide categorical evidence that only the 'dry quantity of cargo' was discharged. The Government emphasized that the declarations made in the import manifest and other legal documents are to be taken as legal submissions.Conclusion:The Government concluded that the shortfall of Pet Coke was not properly accounted for, and the penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, was justified. The arguments regarding bilge water and tolerance limits were not supported by sufficient evidence. The revision application was rejected, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld.Final Order:The revision application is rejected, and the penalty imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, is upheld.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found