Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (11) TMI 1087

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowed the appellant s appeal [2015 (11) TMI 758 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] and set aside the penalties imposed upon it on similar grounds and on the basis of similar evidence. CESTAT in that order came to a finding that there was no evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant, that its employee had suo motu acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of duty and therefore the employer (i.e. the appellant) cannot be penalised. - where the agent was authorised expressely or impliedly by the owner, the owner shall also be liable for the actions of agent. In the present case, no evidence has come on record that the appellant authorised Mr. G.S. Prince expressly or impliedly. - Levy of penalties set aside - Decided in favour of appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sumit Walia. In this case, the appellant was the CHA on whom penalty has been imposed on the ground of facilitating the said illegal imports in violation of the provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004. 3. The appellant has contended that (i) it was not concerned with the activities of Shri Sumit Walia and his associates and the fraudulent activities attributed to it were undertaken by Shri G.S. Prince (who was its employee and G card holder) in his personal capacity and without its knowledge. (ii) In another case involving identical/similar facts, the appeal has been allowed vide CESTAT Final Order Nos.55023-55024, dated 17.12.2014 essentially on the ground that the appellant was unaware of the activities of it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ESTAT in that order came to a finding that there was no evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant, that its employee had suo motu acted for his personal greed and beyond the scope of duty and therefore the employer (i.e. the appellant) cannot be penalised. Para 12 of the said order is reproduced below:- 12. We find that in the case of Appellant No.1, no statement of the appellant was recorded. Moreover, during the course of hearing, the appellant has submitted that Shri G.S. Prince is a G card holder and has acted in his own capacity to get the monetary benefits from the business dealings with Shri Sumit Walia and the appellant was not having any knowledge of such importation. We further find that in subsequent proceedings on .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o facilitated and handled the clearance of the imported vehicle without the knowledge of the CHA M/s. Buhariwala Logistics. Even during the investigation stage, none of the persons involved had made any inculpatory statement regarding the role of M/s. Buhariwala Logistics. However, since Sh. G.S. Prince was acting on behalf of M/s. Buhariwala Logistics. Therefore, it appears that M/s. Buhariwala Logistics failed to perform their duty obligations under the CHALR, 2004 for which proceedings can be initiated under the said Rules. As far as violations under the Customs Act, 1962 are concerned, I do not find any role of M/s. Buhariwala Logistics in the present matter. In view of this fact, I refrain from imposing any penalty on M/s. Buhariwala L .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in para 6.2, the High Court observed as under:- 6.2 Furthermore, if the owner or importer of goods acts through an agent, then, under Section 147, the owner or the importer shall be deemed to have not only knowledge but also presumed to have given his consent to any such thing done by an agent unless the contrary is proved for the purposes of proceeding under the Act, thus making the owner or importer being liable for any infraction of law the agent who is authorized, impliedly or expressly by the owner of exporter shall also be liable. Under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 147 as noticed hereinabove, in so far as, it is a case of duty not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded then except where the such an eventual .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates