Tribunal Overturns Forfeiture of Security Deposit Due to Unintentional Delay in Director Change Notification.

The CESTAT Kolkata set aside the Commissioner's order of forfeiture of a Rs. 50,000 security deposit due to the Appellant's failure to notify a change in the Board of Directors within the required 60 days. The Tribunal found that the delay was not intentional but due to the Appellant's father's illness and subsequent death. With no evidence of deliberate delay, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant and allowed the appeal, overturning the original order.

---

---

Issues involved: Non-intimation of change in Board of Directors within stipulated time leading to forfeiture of security deposit.

Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA addressed the issue of forfeiture of a security deposit amounting to Rs. 50,000 due to the Appellant's failure to notify the change in the Board of Directors within the prescribed 60-day period as mandated by Regulation 14 of CHALR, 2004. The Commissioner's order of forfeiture was challenged by the Appellant before the Tribunal.

The Learned Advocate representing the Appellant highlighted the unfortunate circumstance of the Appellant's father being seriously ill and subsequently passing away, which led to a delay in submitting the required details to the Customs Department regarding the change in the Board of Directors. Reference was made to the Enquiry Report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs Enquiry Officer, dated 25/03/2014, which suggested that the delay could be condoned. The Advocate urged for the Appeal to be allowed based on these grounds.

On the other hand, the Learned Authorized Representative for the Respondent reiterated the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the Appeal records, the Tribunal found sufficient evidence indicating that the delay in notifying the change in the Board of Directors was not intentional but rather due to the Appellant's father's illness. It was noted that there was no evidence to suggest that the delay was deliberate on the part of the Appellant.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-In-Original (OIO) and allowed the present Appeal, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The decision was dictated and pronounced in the open court.

---