TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government Order Quashing Penalty for Short Landing of Urea Upheld</h1> <h3>WILCO & COMPANY Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The appellate order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs regarding penalty for short landing of urea ... Penalty (Customs) - Imposition of - Non-accountal of goods Issues involved: The issues involved in this case are the quashing of the appellate order of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and the consequential order of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise, regarding the penalty for short landing of urea.Summary:Issue 1: Delay in Issuing Show Cause NoticeThe petitioner contended that the delay of more than six years in issuing the show cause notice was unreasonable. The Court agreed, citing precedents that emphasized the need for authorities to act within a reasonable period. The unexplained delay was held to vitiate the demand for penalty.Issue 2: Levy of Penalty on Non-Dutiable GoodsThe petitioner argued that since urea was exempted from duty, no penalty should be imposed. However, the Court found that Section 116 of the Customs Act does not distinguish between dutiable and non-dutiable goods for the purpose of penalty assessment. The penalty was upheld based on the shortfall in accounted-for goods.Issue 3: Nature of Goods and Penalty ImpositionThe petitioner claimed that the marginal short landing due to spillage and shrinkage should not lead to penalty imposition as it did not imply intentional misconduct. The Court noted the inevitable loss in handling such goods but upheld the penalty as a punishment for violation of Customs Act provisions.Separate Judgment by the Judge:The Judge modified the penalty amount to Rs. 20,000, considering the circumstances, unexplained delay, and the nature of the violation. The penalty was reduced to ensure it was reasonable and proportionate to the offense, without causing loss to the state revenue.In conclusion, the writ petitions were partly allowed, modifying the penalty amount to Rs. 20,000, and no costs were imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
