Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2025 (5) TMI 1049

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the application for license for Private Warehouse under section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 (For short "the Customs Act") as per the provisions of para no. 3 (2) (c) of Private Warehouse Licensing Regulations, 2016 (For short "the Regulations"). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an application dated 18.11.2024 for obtaining a private bonded warehouse license under section 58 of the Customs Act along with permission to carry out the manufacturing activities under section 65 of the Customs Act read with Manufacture and other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019 (for short 'the Regulations'). 5. The said application was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad by impugned order dated 06.02.2025 quoting the provisions of para no. 3 (2) (c) of the Regulations. 6. The petitioner thereafter addressed letter dated 11.02.2025 to the office of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad requesting for grant of license contending that the petitioner is not penalised for any offence under the Customs Act, 1962 or the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner also provided confirmation with respect to the Central Goods and Ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ision of para 3 (2) (c) of the Regulations. 14. It was therefore, submitted that the impugned communication rejecting the application for license for Private Warehouse may be quashed and set aside by directing the respondents to issue such license, as the provision of para 3 (2) (c) of the Regulations regarding penalty for offences under the Central Excise Act, Finance Act and Customs Act are not applicable in the facts of the case. 15. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Maunil Yagnik for the respondent has relied upon Circular No. 26/2016-Customs dated 09.06.2016 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs laying down the standard operating procedures for verification of antecedents of the applicant for issuance of license of Private Warehouse under the regulations. 16. It was further pointed out from para 4.1 of the said circular that in order to minimise the time lag for verification of the antecedents of the applicant, it was proposed that a centralised system of verification be followed by referring the name of the applicant and Directors/ Partners/ Proprietor to DRI (HQ) and DGCEI (HQ) for checking antecedents and the existence of any past cases in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... supervision by officers of customs; (iii) bankruptcy proceedings are pending against the applicant; or (iv) criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant ant the offences involved are of such nature that he is not a fit person for grant of licence." 19. On perusal of para 3 (2) (c) of the Regulations, the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs as the case may be is precluded from issuance of license to an applicant if the applicant has been convicted for offence under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. 20. Therefore, the question arises as to what is the offence under the provisions of the Central Excise Act or Customs Act. Chapter 16 of the Customs Act provides for offences and prosecution comprising from section 132 to 140A of the Act. On perusal of the litigation pending against the petitioner, none of the provisions of section 132 to 140A of the Customs Act are alleged to have been violated or any litigation is subject to the provisions. The list of offences/litigation pending against the petitioner as per para no. 7.8 and 7.9 enumerated in the petition reads as under: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act Finalisation of the bills of entry Section 18 (2) No penalty has imposed Appeal is pending before CESTAT, Mumbai That SCN has invoked Section 18 (2) [i.e. Provisional Assessment] of the Customs Act which is general in nature i.e. from which demand is proposed by the Department by issuing a SCN. Thus this section is invoked for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. Therefore, it can be said that the Company has not been issued SCN for penalisation for any offences under Chapter XVI of the Customs Act. 4 21-22/ SHH (21-22)/PC/RG/2015-16 dated 08.10.2015 Excise Act Demand in respect of naptha used in the generation of steam Section 11A of Excise Act read with Rule 6 (3A) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 No penalty has imposed as first Appeal order was in favour of the company Department has filed an Appeal No. E/85148/2016 before the Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai That SCN has invoked Section 11A of the Excise Act, which is general in nature i.e. from which demand is propose d by the Department issuing a SCN. Thus, the section is invoked for alleged contravention of the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 7.9 A perusal of Column No(6) of the aforesaid table makes it amply clear that the penalty proposed/imposed in all the above matters, is only for contravention of general provisions of the respective Acts and none of the matters involve any proposal/imposition of "penalty for offences." 21. Similarly, none of the offences as per the provisions of the Central Excise Act as well as Service Tax Act or GST Act are pending against the petitioner. 22. It appears that the respondents have failed to consider the offences under various indirect taxes Act and mixed up with the concept of contravention or breach of any of the provisions of the Act with the offences as enumerated in various Acts. Therefore, merely because the litigation is pending for any contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, same cannot be considered as an offence and there is a distinction between the "contravention" and "offence" of the Act which can be distinguished as under. 23. As per Black's Law Dictionary, "offence" is defined in context of crime or criminal offence being a violation of law as under: "offense (ə-fents). 1. A violation of the law; a crime, often a minor one. See CRI....