2006 (3) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....posed on very higher side. He would submit that there was no mens rea and in any case the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is beyond the order of remand and, therefore, unsustainable. 3. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is air-carrier and is owned and managed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. 5. The following statement depicts the details of Foreign Travel Tax returns filed by the petitioner and the payment made. Sr. No. FIT Returns pertaining lo month Date of submis sion of FIT Delay of submis sion Delay in submission (no. of days) Challan no. date of payment Amo unt of FTT paid/ reed. Delay in payment (days) inter est @ 20% on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1602/31-10-95 339300 1 136/- - - - - 6. Since the petitioner failed to make payment of the Foreign Travel Tax collected within the specified period and also failed to file monthly returns and placing their manifest within time, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, FTT Department, Sahar International Airport, Bombay issued show cause notices to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted their reply. It was submitted that on few occasions, the delay occurred because the last day of the submission of return and payment happened to be Sunday. It was the case of the petitioner that there was neither any intention to evade the tax nor was there any intention in submitting the monthly returns and the payments belatedly.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1) of Foreign Travel Tax, 1979 and penalty of Rs. 29,000/- for late submission of monthly returns by 58 days. The Original Authority also confirmed the amount of interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of demand and penalty levied under Section 35(a) of the Finance Act, 1979 and same was adjusted from the collection charges paid during the financial year 1997-98. 12. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd November, 2004 passed by the Original Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The said appeal came to be dismissed on 1st April, 2005. The petitioner then carried the matter to the Government of India in revision under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The said revision ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in filing the timely returns and the payment of tax collected was made. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was not intentional or that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner has no relevance. 14. It is clear from the order passed by the Government of India that a minimum penalty has been imposed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act and so also under Rule 10A(1) of the FIT, 1979. The discretion, thus, has been exercised by the authorities in favour of the petitioner by levying a minimum penalty under the aforesaid statutory provisions. 15. From the perusal of the remand order dated 18th March, 2004 it is clearly seen that while setting aside the orders of ....