{"id":223910,"date":"2020-01-07T13:30:07","date_gmt":"2020-01-07T08:00:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=223910"},"modified":"2020-01-22T12:30:44","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T07:00:44","slug":"cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/","title":{"rendered":"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT): <\/strong>Justice P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by a shipping company against the Commissioner of Customs. He further decided that the impugned penalties stand set aside.<\/p>\n

The authorities filed allegations against the appellant under Sections 112(d) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. A show-cause notice was issued against the appellant herein under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act stating that he did not inform the Revenue that the importer did not possess licence for import of Chlorodifluoromethane (R-22 Gas); he did not present the imported goods for examination; and thus he was liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act for abetting smuggling of R-22 gas, for non-compliance of Regulations 11(d) and 11(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR).<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/strong> Whether the Revenue was justified in imposing a penalty under Sections 112 (d) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant who was only a Customs Broker and not the importer.<\/p>\n

J.V. Niranjan, Advocate for the appellant, contended that the Revenue had not established mens rea<\/em> for levying penalty and that the authorities did not conduct any investigation, filed an appeal against the above allegations. L. Nandakumar, Advocate for the Respondent, prayed for sustaining the penalty contending that the Bill-of-Entry did not contain sufficient details of the goods sought to be imported and the appellant did not bother to ascertain whether the importer had the required licence, constituting a serious lapse covered under Regulations 11(d) and 11(n) of the CBLR.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal opined that the Revenue was not able to clearly establish either active or passive role or any deliberate or mala fide <\/em>act; and the appellant had advised the importer as to the requirement of import licence, being sufficient compliance insofar as Regulation 11(d) is concerned. It was further held that the allegations were not sufficient to fasten with the penalty of the nature impugned as it was not established that appellant handled the work of clearance with mala fide <\/em>motive and Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act include an intentional or deliberate act or omission and even the motive is attributable to the act of abetment to do any act or omit to do any act.<\/p>\n

The appeal was allowed stating that Section 114AA could be invoked only on the establishment of the fact that the declaration, statement or document submitted in the transaction of any business for the purpose of the act is false or incorrect. The penalties and impugned order confirming the penalties questioned herein was set aside. [Sea Queen Shipping Services (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs,\u00a02019 SCC OnLine CESTAT 1483<\/b><\/a>, decided on 05-12-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT): Justice P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by a shipping company against the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":201689,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[39150,35419,39149,9541,29904,2531,39151,30639],"class_list":["post-223910","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-bill-of-entry","tag-commissioner-of-customs","tag-customs-broker","tag-licence","tag-mens-rea","tag-Revenue","tag-shipping-company","tag-sine-qua-non"],"yoast_head":"\nCESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT): Justice P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by a shipping company against the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-01-07T08:00:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-01-22T07:00:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/\",\"name\":\"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-01-07T08:00:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-01-22T07:00:44+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act","og_description":"Customs, Excise and Service Tax Tribunal (CESTAT): Justice P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed the appeal filed by a shipping company against the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2020-01-07T08:00:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-01-22T07:00:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/","name":"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","datePublished":"2020-01-07T08:00:07+00:00","dateModified":"2020-01-22T07:00:44+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/07\/cestat-requirement-of-mens-rea-is-a-sine-qua-non-for-imposing-a-penalty-on-customs-broker-under-ss-112-and-114aa-of-the-customs-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"CESTAT | Requirement of mens rea is a sine qua non for imposing a penalty on Customs Broker under Ss. 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":243734,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/12\/cestat-penalty-imposed-under-s-112-read-with-s-114aa-of-the-customs-act-1962-set-aside-tribunal-allows-appeal-stating-absence-of-mens-rea\/","url_meta":{"origin":223910,"position":0},"title":"CESTAT | Penalty imposed under S. 112 read with S. 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside; Tribunal allows appeal stating absence of mens rea","author":"Editor","date":"February 12, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order wherein the penalty of Rs 50,000 had been imposed under Section 112 read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was a customs broker and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":261351,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/02\/09\/unless-7-5-of-the-penalty-is-deposited-when-the-penalty-is-in-dispute-the-appeal-cannot-be-entertained-by-the-tribunal\/","url_meta":{"origin":223910,"position":1},"title":"CESTAT | Unless 7.5% of the penalty is deposited when the penalty is in dispute, the appeal cannot be entertained by the Tribunal","author":"Editor","date":"February 9, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): The Coram of Sulekha Beevi, C.S. (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) decided on an appeal which was filed in the matter of non-compliance with the pre-deposit. It was alleged that M\/s. Sri Vasavi Gold and Bullion Pvt. Ltd. (the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/02\/CESTATNew-Logo.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":245851,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/03\/20\/bill-of-entry\/","url_meta":{"origin":223910,"position":2},"title":"CESTAT | Penal charges for late filing of Bill-of-Entry waived; Tribunal allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"March 20, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Dinesha (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the Order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of G.S.T. and Central Excise (Appeals). The vessel carrying 38,000 kgs of \u201cLaird Lentils\u201d in the name of Moorthy Traders, Virudhunagar, and they did not\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256849,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/11\/09\/can-refund-of-the-igst-paid-on-the-imported-goods-be-demanded-when-there-is-no-intention-to-take-release-of-goods\/","url_meta":{"origin":223910,"position":3},"title":"CESTAT | Can refund of the IGST paid on the imported goods be demanded when there is no intention to take release of goods? Tribunal answers","author":"Editor","date":"November 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Sulekha Beevi C.S. (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal brief facts of which were that the appellants imported Lead Ingots and Refined Lead Ingots for manufacture of pure lead and lead alloys and had entered into contract with M\/s. KYEN Resources Pte. Ltd.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":235860,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/09\/16\/cestat-%e2%94%82-employee-not-liable-for-the-actions-of-the-senior-while-following-instructions-tribunal-allows-appeal-and-sets-aside-penalty-under-s-112-a-of-customs-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":223910,"position":4},"title":"CESTAT | Employee not liable for the actions of the senior while following instructions; Tribunal allows appeal and sets aside penalty under S. 112 (a) of Customs Act","author":"Editor","date":"September 16, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical Member), allowed an appeal filed by the appellant who was an employee, \"H\u201f Cardholder working with Customs House Agent -- Commercial Clearing Agencies Pvt. Limited, at the relevant time. In\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":241924,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/07\/cestat-whether-confiscation-of-goods-and-imposition-of-fine-and-penalty-by-the-lower-authority-in-absence-of-valid-psi-certificate-maintainable-tribunal-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":223910,"position":5},"title":"CESTAT | Whether confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty by the Lower Authority in absence of valid PSI certificate maintainable; Tribunal explains","author":"Editor","date":"January 7, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal which was filed against the Order-in-Appeal whereby two separate appeals of the appellant against two Orders-in-Original had been dismissed. The basic issue recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) was whether confiscation of goods and imposition\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/CESTAT-Taxscan.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223910","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223910"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223910\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/201689"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223910"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223910"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223910"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}