TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 481
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi is assailed by the M/s. Shiv Probuild Private Ltd. [Shiv Probuild] and its Directors Shri Kuldeep Singh [Kuldeep] and Shri Rajkumar [Rajkumar] in these three appeals. The operative part of this Order is as follows: i. I hereby order for cancellation of the Private Bonded Warehouse License No. 05/2022 dated 29.12.2022 in terms of section 58B of the Customs Act, 1962 issued vide C. No. VIII (B)/40/965/2022 under section 65 and section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 to M/s. Shiv Probuild Private Limited for contravention of the terms of the License as discussed supra. ii. I refrain from imposing any penalty on M/s. Shiv Probuild Private Limited under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. iii. I impose a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remises was not indicated as either the principal place of business or additional place of business in the GST registration. This, according to the order is non-compliance of CBIC Circular No. 34/2019 dated 1.10.2019. ii. It's correct address is Khasra No. 15/22, Near Telephone Exchange Samalkha, New Delhi - 110037 which was mentioned as additional place of business and its IEC is also issued with the same address. However, due to a typographical error, the address was mentioned in its application for warehouse licence as Khasra No. 15/24, Near Telephone Exchange Samalkha, New Delhi - 110037. iii. The licence was also accordingly issued with the wrong address. In fact, Khasra No. 15/24 does not belong to it. iv. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... i. The Commissioner examined all the submissions put forth by the appellant and after considering these written and oral submissions, issued a well-reasoned speaking order. ii. The appellant violated conditions laid down in Board's Circular No. 34/2019 dated 01.10.2019 as it had not declared the address of the said warehouse as the Principal/ Additional place of Business, did not upload the supporting documents on the online portal invest.india.gov.in/ bonded-manufacturing. Further, the absence of any import/storage of goods and any manufacturing activity was established in relation to the operation of the said warehouse by the Licensee/party. iii. Section 58B of the Customs Act deals with cancellation of warehousing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and these are: a) Not mentioning the licensed premises as principal or additional place of business under the GST as required by CBIC's circular No. 34/2019 dated 1.10.2019; b) Not registering and uploading documents on the website as required under CBIC Circular No. 34/2019; and c) Not importing any goods into the warehouse and not starting any manufacturing activity in it. 9. Regarding the first alleged violation, the appellant submits that it was supposed to mention Khasra No. 15/22 in its application for warehousing licence but had wrongly mentioned Khasra No. 15/24 which was a typographical error. Learned counsel submits that Khasra No. 15/24 does not belong to the appellant at all. The Address at Khasra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmission is that it is in touch with several people and will import into the customs warehouse and also manufacture in it. 13. In view of the above, we find that the appellant had violated some conditions of licence including mentioning the wrong address of the premises to obtain the licence. It is common practice for the officers to examine the blueprint or map of the premises and visit the premises to check its safety and other features before issuing the licence. Therefore, there could be no doubt about which premises were licenced. According to the appellant, the correct address of the premises was also in its IEC and in its GST registration and mentioning of the wrong address in its application and also in the licence issued by the ....