" \n \nIN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \n EASTERN ZONAL BENCH : KOLKATA \n \nREGIONAL BENCH – COURT NO. 2 \n \nCustoms Appeal No. 76149 of 2019 \n(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 78/Cus/CCP-GST/2018 dated 28.09.2018 passed \nby the Commissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise & Customs Central Revenue \nBuilding, Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar-7) \n \n \nAPPEARANCE: \nShri R. N. Bandyopadhyay, Advocate for the Appellant \n \nShri Ashwini Kr. Choudhary, Authorized Representative for the Respondent \n \nCORAM: \nHON’BLE SHRI R. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) \nHON’BLE SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) \n \nFINAL ORDER NO.75394/2025 \nDATE OF HEARING: 05.02.2025 \n DATE OF PRONOUNCMENT: 19.02.2025 \n \nOrder: [PER SHRI R. MURALIDHAR] \n \n \n \nThe \nappellants \nhave \nimported \ngoods \non \nprovisional assessment basis. In the terms of \nRegulation 3 (3) of Customs, Provisional Duty \nAssessment \nRegulations \n2011, \nthe \nappellant/importer \nis \nrequired \nto \nfile \nall \nthe \nnecessary documents like invoice, bills of leading, \ncertificate of origin and other documents within one \nmonth. However, the appellant has not submitted \nthese \ndocuments \nwithin \none \nmonth's \ntime. \nM/s. Steel Authority Of India Limited, \nSail, House, 6th Floor \n50 Jawaharlal Neheru Road, Kolkata-700 071. \n : Appellant \n \n \n \n \n \nVERSUS \n \nCommissioner (Appeals) CGST, Central Excise \n& Customs \nCentral Revenue Building, \n Rajaswa Vihar, Bhubaneswar-7 \n : Respondent \n\nPage 2 of 4 \n \nAppeal No.: C/76149/2019-DB \n \n \nProceedings were initiated in respect of 88 such \ncases wherein the documents were not filed on a \ntimely basis. The adjudicating authority, after \nconsidering the factual details, imposed a penalty of \nRs.45,000/- under Regulation 5 of the Customs, \nProvisional Duty Assessment Regulations 2011 on \nthe appellant. \n2. \nThe Revenue filed an appeal before the \nCommissioner of Appeals on the ground that the \nappellant \nhas \ndelayed \nfiling \nof \nthe \nrelevant \ndocuments and not filed within one month period. As \na matter of fact, in many cases, the documents were \nsubmitted after more than one year. Therefore, they \nargued that the penalty, by the adjudicating \nauthority is much lower. They submitted that in \nterms of Regulation 5, penalty up to Rs.50,000/- is \nimposable \nin \nsuch \ncases \nof \ncontravention. \nCommissioner of Appeals, after going through the \nappeal, has imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- for \neach and every one of the 88 bills of entry, which \nhas resulted in the total penalty being confirmed at \nRs.44,00,000/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant is \nbefore the Tribunal. \n3. \nThe Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the \nappellant submits that the appellant is a Public \nSector Undertaking and has to gather documents \nfrom various sources in order to file all the \ndocumentary evidence before the Customs Authority. \nThis has resulted in a delayed filing of the documents \nbefore them. Therefore, he submits that considering \nthese facts, the adjudicating authority has correctly \nimposed a penalty of Rs.45,000/-. He submits that \nthe Commissioner of Appeals has gone to another \nextreme by imposing penalty of Rs.50,000/- on each \n\nPage 3 of 4 \n \nAppeal No.: C/76149/2019-DB \n \n \nand every bill of entry, which has resulted in a huge \npenalty of Rs.44,00,000/-. He prays a sympathetic \nview may be taken and the enhanced penalty may \nbe set aside. \n4. \nThe \nLearned \nAuthorized \nRepresentative \nappearing on behalf of the Revenue says that the \nappellant has been time and again filing their \ndocuments \nin \na \nvery \ndelayed \nmanner. \nThe \nadjudicating authority had taken a very sympathetic \nview and had just imposed a token penalty of \nRs.45,000/-, whereas after going through the factual \ndetails, the Commissioner of Appeals has correctly \nenhanced the penalty of Rs.50,000/- for each bill of \nentry. Accordingly, he justifies the penalty imposed \non the appellant. \n5. \nWe have gone through the factual details and \nthe Order-in-Original (O-IO) and other appeal papers \nsubmitted by both the sides. We find that as per Rule \n5, the maximum penalty imposable in case of each \nbill of entry is Rs.50,000/-The Commissioner of \nAppeals has taken a very stringent view and imposed \nRs.50,000/- per Bill of Entry, which has resulted in a \ntotal penalty of Rs.44,00,000/-. \n6. \nOn the other hand, we also see the point of \nview of the Revenue to the effect that the appellant \nhas been delaying the filing of documents in almost \nall the cases. We have taken some sample \ndocuments presented by the appellant. We find that \nfor the Bill of Entry lading dated 29.04.2014, the \nappellant has filed the documents on 09.05.2016. In \nanother case, in case of Bill of Lading dated \n09.12.2014, \ndocuments \nhave \nbeen \nfiled \non \n16.05.2016. In another case, they have filed the \ndocuments on 23.05.2016 for the Bill of lading dated \n\nPage 4 of 4 \n \nAppeal No.: C/76149/2019-DB \n \n \n26.02.2015. Thus, we find that in almost all the \ncases, the appellant has filed the documents after 1 \nor 2 years’ time, whereas, they were required to file \nthe same within 30 days’ time. Thus they have not \npaid any heed to the statutory provisions and have \ncontravened the same . Just because the appellants \nhappen to be a Public Sector Undertaking, no special \nconcession can be shown. They are carrying \ncommercial activity and are profit generating unit. \n7. \nHowever, we feel that the imposing of penalty \nat the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Bill of Entry is quit \nharsh. In a recent decisions in respect of many of \nsuch importer violating this condition, this Bench had \nheld that penalty of about Rs.2500/- per Bill of Entry \nwould meet the ends of justice. Following this issue, \nwe hold that the appellant is required to pay penalty \nof Rs.2500/- for every Bill of Entry. Accordingly, we \nreduce \nthe \npenalty \nfrom \nRs.44,00,000 \nto \nRs.2,25,000. \n8. \nThus, the appeal stands allowed partly. \n \n (Order Pronounced in Open court on 19.02.2025) \n \n \n (R. MURALIDHAR) \n MEMBER (JUDICIAL) \n \n \n \n (K. ANPAZHAKAN) \n MEMBER (TECHNICAL) \nrkp \n \n \n"