2018 (4) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and circumstances of the case, whether the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the appeal filed by the Respondent? (b) The question is, whether Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is right in law even though e-sugam produced by the Respondent at the time of interception is beyond the time prescribed in the Notification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 53(2-A) of the KVAT Act?" 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, Assessee-respondent placed order to purchase ceramic glazed tiles from a firm in Gujarat. Accordingly, 9071 boxes of tiles were dispatched through a ship M.V. Oel which reached Mangaluru Port on 27.12.2012. Customs clearance was completed on 31.12.2012.   3. On 3.1.2013, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is that e-sugam is expired is 31/12/2012. Thus the provision of Sec.53(2)(A) have been contravened. The observation of the First Appellate Authority as disclosed in page no.3 of the order passed in KVAT AP.394/2012-13 dated 19/11/2013 is that .................... Since there is a contravention of sec.53(2) and 53(2-A) by the Appellant by carrying a e-sugam the validity period of which expired the Respondent is fully justified in levying the penalty at twice the amount of tax payable which is the minimum.................................... With this observation, the First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal. In this order of the First Appellate Authority in page no.2 the First Appellate Authority has also referred the submission....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed is due to unforeseeable event of the nature calamity like bad weather. Under the circumstances , the finding of the CTO and that the Appellant has contravenes the provision of law laid down u/s.53 of the KVAT Act and is liable to pay the penalty itself is an erroneous unsustainable findings. Hence we are of the considered view that the Appellant has proved the point No.1. Accordingly we answer the point no.1 in the Affirmative." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Admittedly, goods were indented from Gujarat. They reached Penambur Port on 27.12.2012. Customs formalities were completed on 31.12.2012. The cause shown by the assessee is that the delay in transshipment occurred as the goods arrived belatedly due to bad weather, which was beyond as....