9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of books, the revision petitioner also indulges in sale of religious articles which are used in christian religious services like Chalices, Ciborium, Monstrance etc. 2. During the assessment year 2012-13, assessee imported certain religious articles from Italy. The imported articles were cleared on 7.6.2012 and were valued at Rs. 10,24,873/-. It was claimed that as revision petitioner comprised of clergy, it was not fully aware about the intricacies of import and hence entrusted the matter with clearing agents. While the imported goods were being transported, the Intelligence Inspector intercepted it at Athani. Though the bill of entry and complete addresses, including details of the importer were all available, it was noticed that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax and that the goods transported were imported in accordance with law, a huge penalty was imposed. Imposition of penalty for an inadvertent omission/mistake to carry Form 8FA was unwarranted, argued the counsel. It was contended that the quantum of penalty imposed was too onerous, especially in the light of the nature and character of the revision petitioner. The learned counsel invited our attention to the decision in Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa [(1969) 2 SCC 627]: [(1970) 25 STC 211] to contend that a mere default in carrying a statutory obligation ought not automatically invite a penalty in the the absence of mens rea. 7. Adv.V.K.Shamsudheen, learned Senior Government Pleader on the other hand after referring to variou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty, the nature of the business of the petitioner, the fact that all documents to show that the goods were imported, are all matters that are to be borne in mind. Though the technical omission of carrying Form 8FA declaration is penal, the circumstances of the case do not justify imposition of the quantum of penalty as was done by the Intelligence Officer. We are of the view that a minimal penalty alone ought to have been imposed in the instant case. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the nature of the transaction involved in the case, we feel that an amount of Rs. 15,000/- alone ought to have been imposed as a penalty. 10. Accordingly, while we affirm the imposition of penalty, as ordered by the Appellate Tribunal, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
