TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....L.') under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, assailing the order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (hereinafter, 'CESTAT'), dated 28th July, 2025, in Appeal Diary No. 55848 of 2024 (hereinafter, 'impugned order'). 3. A brief background of the Appellant's case is that, B.S.N.L., which is a telecommunications service provider, provides mobile voice and internet services through an expansive network across India. Certain tender was floated by the B.S.N.L., and Advance Purchase Orders (hereinafter, 'APOs') were released to the successful vendors. Certain equipment such as Baseband Unit Module (hereinafter, 'BBU') and Radio Access Technology (hereinafter, 'RAT') were to be imported and B.S.N.L. classified th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... whereas, the demanded duty was of Rs. 8,52,49,233/-. Hence, they had made short payment of Rs. 3,04,945/- along with applicable interest in respect of import made at ICD-Ballabgarh. The importer has also not informed any reason as to why he was liable to pay less amount in as much as Rs. 3,04,945/- and how he has arrived at the payable amount of Rs. 8,49,44,288/-. Therefore, it appears that the Noticee has failed to pay an amount of Rs. 3,04,945/-. 28.2 I have further observed that the importer has also not paid any amount of penalty in view Sec. 28(5) of Customs Act, 1962 so as to claim the benefits of the provisions of Section 28(6) of Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, I am forced to confirm penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... duty not paid, under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. However, M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited shall have option to pay 25% of penalty confirmed within a period of 30 days from the date of the communication of this order, in view of the 1st Proviso to Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962." 8. It is relevant to note that in the OIO itself, the Adjudicating Authority records that the differential duty has been almost fully paid. However, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded to impose penalty. 9. This OIO dated 20th February, 2023, was an appealable order and B.S.N.L. filed an appeal under Section 129(A)(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides a limitation period of three months from the date ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the applicant to file an appeal, the applicant internally deliberated upon this issue and then decided to file an appeal. It has also been stated that the process for engaging a firm/counsel to represent the applicant was initiated in September, 2023 and continued upto October, 2023. When a firm was appointed and it sought certain documents, these documents were not provided "due to re-shuffling of the internal department" and for a long period of about year thereafter the applicant remained inactive and it was left to the audit team, when an audit was carried in September, 2024, to inform the applicant that no appeal had been filed. This shows complete lack of due diligence on the part of the appellant. 42. There is, therefore, n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. 10. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that the imposition of the penalty would not be justified in the facts of this case as, B.S.N.L. is a public body, and there could not have been any allegation of collusion or wilful statement, as the declaration was made initially itself, and thereafter the payment of the differential duty was fully bona fide and was voluntary. Further, ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits that, even before any notice was issued by the Customs Department, B.S.N.L. had paid the differential duty. 11. The submission of ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that, under such circumstances, to invoke the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Supreme Court in Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 600 and the recent decision of this Court dated 23rd July, 2025 in CUSAA 27/2024 titled M/s Siddhi Vinayak Importers v. Commissioner of Customs clearly shows that if there is sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay, merits should be considered. 16. Be that as it may, the CESTAT order cannot be faulted as there appears to have been no valid justification for the delay following the decision in Office of The Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Ltd. 2012 (277) E.L.T. 289 (SC). However, considering the fact that there was a voluntary declaration by B.S.N.L., prima facie there appears to be some merit in the contention of the B.S.N.L., that i....