TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y case the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is beyond the order of remand and, therefore, unsustainable. 3. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. The petitioner is air-carrier and is owned and managed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. 5. The following statement depicts the details of Foreign Travel Tax returns filed by the petitioner and the payment made. Sr. No. FIT Returns pertaining lo month Date of submis sion of FIT Delay of submis sion Delay in submission (no. of days) Challan no. date of payment Amo unt of FTT paid/ reed. Delay in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 349200 4 765/- - - - 7. May 96 1-7-96 1 3/1-7-96 312600 1 171/- - - - - 8. Jun. 96 1-8-96 2 2587/31-7-96 246000 1 135/- - - - 9. July. 96 2-9-96 3 7/2-9-96 162300 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - - 16. Sept. 95 31-10-95 1 1602/31-10-95 339300 1 136/- - - - - 6. Since the petitioner failed to make payment of the Foreign Travel Tax collected within the specified period and also failed to file monthly returns and placing their manifest within time, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, FTT Department, Sahar International Airport, Bombay issued show cause notices to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted their reply. It was submitted that on few occasions, the delay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Commissioner of Customs and by the order passed on 2nd November, 2004 imposed a penalty of ₹ 7,59,060/- under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979. The Original Authority also imposed a minimum penalty of ₹ 32,000/- for 16 cases under the provisions of Rule 10A(1) of Foreign Travel Tax, 1979 and penalty of ₹ 29,000/- for late submission of monthly returns by 58 days. The Original Authority also confirmed the amount of interest at the rate of 20% per annum from the date of demand and penalty levied under Section 35(a) of the Finance Act, 1979 and same was adjusted from the collection charges paid during the financial year 1997-98. 12. Aggrieved by the order dated 2nd November, 2004 passed by the Original Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intention of delayed payment of tax on the part of the petitioner is not necessary. Mens rea is not sine qua non to the imposition of penalty under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 or Rule 10A(1) of FTT, 1979. The petitioner made itself liable to the penalty as soon as the default in filing the timely returns and the payment of tax collected was made. In this view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the delay was not intentional or that there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner has no relevance. 14. It is clear from the order passed by the Government of India that a minimum penalty has been imposed under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act and so also under Rule 10A(1) of the FIT, 197 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
