Page 163 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] GENERAL SECURITY & INFOR. SERVICES v. COMMR. OF CGST & C. EX., KOLKATA 553

toms/the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be shall pass an
order to recover the amount of drawback paid to the claimant and such exporter
shall pay the amount within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the afore-
said order. He therefore submits that since the petitioner delayed in submitting
BRC in time, penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act has been correctly
imposed.
7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents
and perused the impugned order and records.
8. In this case a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27-8-
2010. The petitioner had failed to file the relevant BRCs/extensions from Reserve
Bank of India in time. Therefore, the Third Respondent was justified in issuing
the above mentioned show cause notice to the petitioner. The fact however, re-
mains that the Third Respondent has come to a conclusion that there was export
realization though belatedly and therefore dropped the proceeding but at the
same time has imposed of penalty for late realization of the export proceeds. Sec-
tion 117 makes it very clear that penalty is to be imposed where there is failure to
comply or where there is a violation in law, penalty can be imposed. The export-
ers do face difficulties in realization of export proceeds and therefore not all cases
where there is a delay in producing BRCs penalty is to be imposed. Further, im-
position of penalty may result in denial of export incentive indirectly in several
cases.
9. I am satisfied that this is not a fit case for imposition of Rs. 25,000/-
as there is a realization of the export proceeds. However, since there is a failure
of penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, penalty of Rs. 25,000/-
is reduced to Rs. 5,000/-.
10. This writ petition stands disposed of as above. No costs. Conse-
quently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 553 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji and Md. Nizamuddin, JJ.
GENERAL SECURITY & INFOR. SERVICES
GENERAL SECURITY & INFORMATION SERVICES
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST & C. EX., KOLKATA
CEXA No. 16 of 2019, decided on 6-2-2020
Appeal to High Court - Maintainability of - Impugned order of Tribu-
nal being challenged on the ground of being passed in breach of the principles
of natural justice and in ignorance of the law of limitation, it cannot be said
that appeal has a relation to classification of goods, its valuation or the rate of
duty - Appeal maintainable under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 read
with Section 83 of Finance Act, 1994. [para 20]
Appellate Tribunal’s order - Non-speaking order - No proper reasons
given by Tribunal in support of its finding - Certificate of the Metro Railway
certifying the nature of service rendered by appellant also not taken into ac-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  163