2021-TIOL-41-SC-IT-LB

ACIT Vs Avaya India Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court dismisses the Revenue's SLP on grounds of low tax effect, while leaving the question of law open.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-40-SC-IT-LB

CIT Vs Baroda Cricket Association

In writ, the Supreme Court directs that notices be issued to the parties and that the matter be tagged with Civil Appeal No.9284 of 2017. Considering the recurring nature of the issues at hand, the matters are directed to be listed for hearing in first week of February.

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-39-SC-IT-LB

ACIT Vs Hitachi Hi Rel Power Electronics Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court directs that the matter be listed for hearing on Jan 11, 2021.

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-38-SC-IT-LB

ACIT Vs Hitachi Hi Rel Power Electronics Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court directs that notices be issued to the parties concerned. It also permits four weeks' time to file counter affidavit & directs that the matter be listed for hearing after six weeks.

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-37-SC-IT-LB

Pr CIT Vs Majestic Developers

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court observes that the findings of the High Court do not warrant any interference with.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-36-SC-IT-LB

Pr CIT Vs Motisons Entertainment India Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court directs that the matter be listed for hearing on Jan 21, 2021.

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-35-SC-IT-LB

DCIT Vs Pepsi Foods Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court directs that the matters be listed for hearing on Feb 24.

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-34-SC-IT-LB

Pr CIT Vs Rawmin Mining & Industries Pvt Ltd

In writ, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court observes that the tax limit involved in the present appeal is lesser than the limit prescribed in the relevant Circular of the CBDT. Hence the SLP is dismissed on grounds of low tax effect.

- Revenue's SLP dismissed: SUPREME COURT

2021-TIOL-33-SC-IT

Venus Texspin Ltd Vs CIT

In writ, the Supreme Court directs that the matter be listed for hearing in January 2021.

- Case deferred: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-172-HC-MAD-IT

CIT Vs Prasanchand Daga

On appeal, the High Court finds that similar issues raised in the case of CIT Vs. Manish D.Jain [HUF] wherein the same were answered in favor of the Revenue. Hence the present appeal is disposed off accordingly, and the order of the Tribunal is set aside.

- Revenue's appeal allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-171-HC-MAD-IT

S Manoharan Vs ACIT

On appeal, the High Court observes that the assessee seeks resolution of the dispute under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Hence it finds no reason to keep the present appeal pending. It also directs the Competent Authority under the Scheme to consider the assessee's application & pass order accordingly.

- Assessee's appeal disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-170-HC-KAR-IT

Pr CIT Vs Navanidhi Vividhoddesha Sahakara Sangha Ltd

Whether while considering the aspect of delay in filing returns, genuine hardship being faced by assessee is to be taken into account & discretion has to be exercised in genuine cases - YES: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-155-ITAT-DEL

Ritu Jain Vs ACIT

Whether addition u/s 68 for bogus long term capital gain on sale of shares can be made when the company has no profits and no significant business activity - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: DELHI ITAT

2021-TIOL-154-ITAT-MUM

Central Bank of India Vs DCIT

Whether deduction of shifting loss can be denied when there is clear mandate of RBI requiring booking of such loss at the time of shifting and recording of such shifted securities at lower of book value or market value as on the date of shifting - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: MUMBAI ITAT

2021-TIOL-153-ITAT-CHD

ITO Vs Avtar Singh Construction Company Pvt Ltd

Whether case with low tax effect can be decided with exception in clause 10(c) of the Circular No. 17/2019 when there is no adverse judgment on any of the issues as mentioned in the CBDT Circular - NO: ITAT

- Revenue's appeal dismissed: CHANDIGARH ITAT

2021-TIOL-152-ITAT-JAIPUR

Manoj Kumar Gupta Vs ITO

Whether addition can be made on adhoc basis without pointing out any specific defect or instance of non-maintenance of vouchers - NO: ITAT

Whether addition on account of unexplained investment can be made when assessee has failed to file any documentary evidence in support of addition made - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: JAIPUR ITAT

2021-TIOL-151-ITAT-BANG

Image Labels Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT

Whether delay in filing appeal befor the CIT(A) can be condoned when assessee explains the delay owing to shifting of registered office and factory - YES: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2021-TIOL-150-ITAT-BANG

E Ramana Reddy Vs DCIT

Whether addition can be made u/s 153C when the assessment is not abated on the date of search - NO: ITAT

Whether addition of 1/3rd of the cash seized at the time of search can be made when the cash withdrawals are made before the search - NO: ITAT

- Assessee's appeal is partly allowed: BANGALORE ITAT

2021-TIOL-179-HC-DEL-GST

Sartaj Ali Vs UoI

2021-TIOL-178-HC-MUM-GST

Tejas Pravin Dugad Vs UoI

GST -  Petitioners are directors of M/s. Ganraj Ispat Private Limited company and the company is registered under the provisions of the Act, 2017 - One Tushar Munot, sole proprietor of M/s. Rutu Enterprises was arrested by the officers of GST intelligence in the month of October 2020 - In the month of November 2020, search of the premises of the company of Petitioners was conducted and some documents came to be seized - It is the contention of the Petitioners that as there was allegations of commission of offence under section 132 of the Act and it was informed to them that there was GST liabilities of Rs. 84,00,046/- -  the Petitioner deposited this amount with Respondent No. 2, but under protest - It is the contention of the Petitioners that all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure need to be applied for registration of crime, investigation and for taking cognizance of the offence and as the procedure is not followed, action taken against them is illegal -Inasmuch it is their contention that the provisions of Sections 154, 157 and 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not followed by the Respondents.

Held:  The criminal proceeding can be filed by the Respondent department but such proceeding is not in existence at present and from that angle, the petitions are premature -  Provisions of 67, 67(10), 69, 132, 134, 138 and scheme of the Act show that separate Chapters are given in the Act for determination of tax not paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed and for offences and penalties - In view of the scheme of the Act, this Court has no hesitation to hold that in the cases of present nature, both adjudication and prosecution can be started simultaneously - Further, the aforesaid special provisions shall prevail over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it cannot be said that all the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure like Sections 154 and 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure need to be followed for prosecution under the Act - This Court is limiting the scope of discussion only to the extent of the offences committed under the Act and the observations are made only from that angle - If offences under the Indian Penal Code also are committed then different and more serious view can be taken - It needs to be kept in mind that the allegations make out the case of forgery - The aforesaid circumstances and position of law are sufficient for dismissal of all the proceedings - Respondent department was virtually prevented from exercising its powers even like issuing summons - By such Interim order, the Petitioners indirectly got relief of anticipatory bail, which is also not ordinarily permissible in proceeding of present nature - White collar offences are more serious than offences like murder, dacoity etc. - Such offences are committed after hatching conspiracy - This circumstance needs to be kept in mind by Court as the granting of relief of anticipatory bail hampers investigation and such approach causes damage to the image of judiciary - All the petitions stand dismissed; In each petition, the Petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- as costs of the petition and the amount is to be deposited in this Court within four weeks: High Court [para 21, 22, 23]

- Petitions dismissed : BOMBAY HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-177-HC-KERALA-GST

Petronet Lng Ltd Vs Assistant State Tax Officer

GST - Petitioner had preferred this writ petition at interim stage when he was directed to show cause - Now final order has been passed under Section 129(3) of the Act, 2017 and the said order is an appealable order under the statute - In this view of the matter, Bench is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition against show cause notice which has ultimately culminated in final order - Petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy as is available in law - As now jurisdiction vests with the Appellate Authority to deal with the matter, Bench is not inclined to pass any directions for release of goods on furnishing Bank Guarantee: High Court [para 4]

- Petition disposed of : KERALA HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-176-HC-AHM-GST

Jayvir Govubha Jadeja Vs UoI

Held: Writ application is disposed of by asking the writ applicant to prefer an application under Section 30 of the CGST Act for the revocation of cancellation of registration, at the earliest - Once such application is filed, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order within three days - writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 4, 5]

- Application disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-175-HC-AHM-GST

Kumar Enterprises Vs State Of Gujarat

GST - Final order of confiscation under Section 130 of the CGST Act has been passed by the respondent no.2 - Bench is informed that the writ applicant has preferred an Appeal under Section 107 of the Act challenging the order of confiscation - Bench is, therefore, of the view that as the appeal has already been filed and is pending before the appellate authority, there is no good or valid reason to entertain this writ application - Goods are of perishable in nature being 'cumin seeds' - Keeping this aspect also in mind, the Appellate Authority shall see to it that the Appeal is decided by 31.01.2021 after giving due opportunity of hearing to the writ applicant - Writ application stands disposed of: High Court [para 2 to 4]

- Application disposed of : GUJARAT HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-56-AAR-GST

Gujarat Narmada Valley Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd

GST - Applicant  has entered into a lease agreement dated 01.12.2015 with the President of India acting through the Commissioner of Central Excise, Audit-I, Ahmedabad  (lessee) to provide, along with the building for a rent, the interior infrastructure like partitions, cabins, work stations, electrical air conditioners, fire safety systems, tables, chairs etc. at agreed monthly rent - applicant submitted that the department was paying service tax on total consideration of rent including that on electricity charges to the applicant up to 30.06.2017 - However, the department has stopped paying GST component on electricity and incidental charges from 01.07.2017 under the pretext that GST is not applicable in terms of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 on such electricity charges even though such charges are clearly incidental expenses in respect of supply of service of renting or immovable property - They are charging GST on electricity charges, recovered as a part of total consideration for renting of immovable property and recovering the same from other tenants and is also paying GST to respective governments - Applicant has, therefore, sought ruling on the following questions (1) When landlord charges electricity or incidental charges in additional to rent as per Lease Agreement for immovable property rented to the tenant, is landlord liable to pay and recover GST from tenant on electricity or incidental charges charged by it? (2) Can electricity charges paid by landlord to Torrent Power Ltd. (the supplier of electricity) for electricity connection in the name of landlord and recovered based on sub meters from different tenants be considered as amount recovered as pure agent of the tenant when the legal liability to pay electricity bill to Torrent Power Ltd. is that of landlord?

Held:  Careful scrutiny of the clause 9 of the agreement indicates that the supplier of the service has made it mandatory that the Govt. of India is required to pay all the charges in respect of electric power used - The above indicates that the applicant has cast an onus on the lessee to pay the charges in respect of the electric power used by them directly to the electricity company - Further, the two clauses 3 & 9 clearly mean that both are independent of each other and the applicant has agreed upon to charge the fixed amount as per clause 3 towards the supply of services, whereas, the applicant has cast an onus on the lessee to pay the actual electric power charges in respect of the power used by the lessee - In view of such an agreement, it cannot be said that the electricity charges would be covered by Sec. 15(2)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 for the sole reason that the rate for renting of premises has been fixed at an amount and the electricity charges are to be borne by the lessee as per the actual usage of electric power by them in terms of the agreement - Accordingly, the said amount would not be includible in the value of supply - However, the applicant has not provided a separate electric meter to the lessee in the instant case and as such the lessee cannot make the payment of electric charges directly to the electric company - In such circumstances the applicant makes the payment to the electric company and in-turn collects such charges from the lessee - To make the system work, the applicant have installed sub-meters and they collect the charges of the electric power used by the lessee as per the usage of power ascertained from such sub-meter - The above makes it amply clear that the lessee was supposed to pay the electricity charges directly to the electric company as per the actual usage in terms of the agreement - However, for the failure of the lessor to obtain a separate electric meter for the premises rented to the lessee, they have mutually agreed to collect the electric charges on the basis of actual usage based on the sub-meters and onward payment to the electric company - It is noteworthy to mention that the lessee is Govt. of India and as such would, by no means pay any amount in excess or lower than the actual electric power used by them - With a purpose to ensure such actual payment, the lessor i.e. the applicant has installed a sub-meter for the lessee - Thus, it is purely a reimbursable expense made by the lessee which is collected on actual usage of the electric power - Secondly, if at all the amount was not be charged on actual usage basis, it would have been all the more easier for both the parties to fix a certain amount towards electricity charges in the agreement itself - However, this has not been done which clarifies the intent of both the parties that the charges towards electric power usage would be on actual basis - However, due to lack of infrastructure on the part of the lessor, there is a silent agreement between both the parties that the applicant will collect the actual usage charges on the basis of the reading of the sub-meter and in-turn pay the same to the electric company - Since this arrangement has been on-going since such a long time, it can be clearly said that there is a mutual understanding between both the parties and such mutual understanding is also an called an 'agreement' in terms of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1852 - Thus, the conditions of Rule 33 of the CGST Rules, 2017 also stand satisfied in the instant case and as such it is concluded that the electricity expenses incurred by the applicant on behalf of the lessee have been incurred in the capacity of a pure agent: AAR

- Application disposed of : AAR

2021-TIOL-169-HC-MAD-VAT

Mehar Hotels Pvt Ltd Vs Asstt Commissioner

VAT - Assessee is a registered dealer - It is running a restaurant where ready to eat unbranded foods including sweets, savories, unbranded, non-alcoholic drinks and beverages are served. For the assessment years in question, the petitioner filed returns in Form-L. The returns filed along with proof of payment of tax were accepted by the Revenue who had also issued assessment orders under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006. While so, vide notices dated 26.12.2011 and 06.08.2012, the Revenue pointed out that though the assessee was liable to pay tax at 12.5% as per Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, they had paid tax only at 2%. The short levy of tax was quantified at Rs.48,95,752/- and the assessee was called upon to pay the said amount. In response thereto, the assessee submitted its explanation on 09.01.2012 and 13.08.2012. Rejecting the assessee's explanation, the Revenue invoking his power under Section 27(1)(b) of the Act, revised the assessment and directed the assessee vide proceedings dated 16.08.2012 to pay Rs.59,52,423/-, being the difference of tax, together with interest - The assessee who was not eligible to invoke Section 8 of the Act cannot advance the contention that re-assessment is without jurisdiction. Mere filing of the return in Form-L cannot be determinative of the issue. Section 27(1)(b) of the Act can be invoked when it is noticed within the limitation period that the whole or any part of the turn over of business of a dealer has been assessed at a rate lower than the rate at which it is assessable. The assessee who ought to have been assessed and directed to pay at 12.5% of the taxable turn over had paid only at 2%. The Revenue rightly determined the difference of tax payable by the petitioner at Rs. 59,52,423 - As per Section 42 of the Act, the interest is computed at the rate of 2% per month. The assessee's contention is that there can be levy of interest only if after a formal assessment order is passed, the amount remains unpaid. In the case on hand, the impugned orders came to be passed only on 16.08.2012. Therefore, there cannot be direction to pay interest for the period preceding the said date. This contention necessarily be rejected the same because the assessee had filed false returns. The assessee is therefore liable to pay interest at the statutory rate from the date when the tax became due and payable by them. The assessee by their conduct invited the impugned orders and have to blame themselves for the resulting consequences. Rate of interest is scaled down to 6% per annum for the period during which the writ petitions were pending before this Court -

- Assessee's appeal partly allowed: MADRAS HIGH COURT

2021-TIOL-32-SC-ST-LB

CCE & ST Vs AB Motions Pvt Ltd  

ST - The assessee is an owner of the mall namely 'The Western Mall' and also owns multiplex under the brand name of 'Wave Cinemas' in said mall - They entered into agreements with the distributors/sub distributors for display of films/movies at the multiplex cinema screens - The department views that the assessee is engaged in providing service of "Business Support Service" by way of Exhibition of movies in their multiplexes - As per the agreement entered into by assessee and the various distributors/ sub distributors, the revenue generated from selling of tickets of movies was shared between the assessee and the various distributors in percentage terms - The assessee provides the theatre and other facilities such as arrangement of projector and other related equipments to screen the film - Under this arrangement, both the parties are working for mutual benefit of each other - The Tribunal held that the assessee is not providing any service to any other party whereas they are providing services to self - Revenue generated by assessee which is shared by assessee and the distributors is from the sale of movie tickets to the customers and from this revenue he is also making payment to the distributors in spite of the fact that copy right of exhibiting the movie has not been passed on to him - This purely reflect that a partnership between the distributor and the assessee exist to display the movie in assessee's theater - In such a situation the element of service from assessee to the distributor does not exist and rather it is a service to himself - There is no service element from the assessee to the distributor or sub-distributor - Issue is no longer res integra as it has been already decided by Tribunal in the case of PVS Multiplex India Pvt Ltd - The activity undertaken by assessee is not classifiable under service tax category of 'Business Support Service' and therefore, not taxable - Accordingly, the order was set aside.

Held - It is canvassed that the judgment relied on by the Tribunal in its judgment is pending in appeal before High Court at Allahabad - Notice be issued in respect of the present appeal, returnable in four weeks: SC LB

- Notice issued: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-31-SC-ST-LB

CST Vs UFO Moviez India Ltd

ST - Demand was made by the department on Lease Rentals of Digital Cinema Equipment (DCE) under Supply Of Tangible Goods service - In appeal by assessee, CESTAT had by its order dated 17.08.2017 [ 2017-TIOL-3338-CESTAT-MUM ] held that for bringing any service under the category of "supply of tangible goods service" in terms of Section 65 (105) ( zzzj ) it is imperative to see that such service is in respect of services towards supply of tangible goods for use  "without transferring right of possession and effective control" ; that in the present case once the DCE were transferred to Theatre owner, the Appellant had no control over running of such equipment which are to be operated by the persons employed /deputed by the Theatre owner; that the Theatre owner had contractual control over such equipment which was in their possession; that CBEC vide D.O.F NO.  334/1/2008-TRU dt. 29.02.2008 in Para 4.4 also states that "Supply of tangible goods for use, and leviable to VAT/Sales tax as deemed sale of goods, is not covered under the scope of the proposed service; that the appellant was discharging the VAT liability even before the taxability on 'Supply of Tangible goods for use'; that, therefore, there is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of Service Tax on lease rentals on DCE, on the part of the appellant and hence the demand for extended period is clearly time barred; that the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority insofar as the case relating to lease rentals & registration fees for the normal period is concerned - Against this order, Revenue (Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai) has filed an appeal with an application for Condonation of delay - Counsel for the respondent submits that in fact this Special Leave Petition is devoid of merits as the respondent has already paid VAT on the same transaction and for which reason, it is not open to invoke regime of service tax in respect of the same transaction.

Held: Bench observes that no explanation has been offered for inaction between 17.08.2017 until 10.02.2020 despite the tax amount involved is over Rs.24 crores - In either case, if the court is not convinced, may consider of imposing exemplary cost in this matter, which issue will be considered on the next date - Matter to be listed after two weeks: Supreme Court Larger Bench.

- Matter listed :SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2021-TIOL-52-CESTAT-CHD

Prem Steel & Metals Pvt Ltd Vs CCE & ST

CX - The appellants are in appeal against impugned order denying cenvat credit to the main appellant and imposing penalties on all the appellants - During investigation, shortage of inputs was found - Further, duty free goods were also been unloaded which creates doubt that the appellant is procuring duty free goods and procuring invoices to avail cenvat credit without receiving the goods - In the annexure to SCN, the vehicles were found to be auto cycles and transportation of goods has been arranged by appellant themselves - In the circumstances, the cenvat credit is not admissible to appellant on the invoices issued by Kanhya Lal Jai Narain - Further, with regard to the invoice issued by Ram Parkash & Sons, their vehicle found to be Tractor Trailer and it has been alleged in SCN that some of the vehicles were light goods vehicles which were later found to be heavy goods vehicles, further the Tractor Trailer is capable of transportation of heavy goods - Therefore, on the invoices issued by Ram Parkash & Sons, the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit and to that extent, no penalty can be imposed on appellant - With regard to the invoice issued by Marwah Trading Co. Batala, the appellant has produced the decision of Tribunal vide Final Order dt. 29.08.2019 wherein penalty against Marwah Trading Co. has been dropped by this Tribunal - Benefit of doubt goes in favour of appellant - Therefore, for invoices issued by Marwah Trading Co., the appellant is entitled to avail cenvat credit - In the case of invoices issued by M/s Madan Industrial Corporation, the appellant has stated that they asked for D.T.O. report which was not supplied to them - Moreover, it is their statement on record that they have supplied the goods and received the payments and the buyer has arranged for transportation of goods - Thus, penalty on M/s Madan Industrial Corporation cannot be imposed, but it is also a fact that the transportation has been done by appellant themselves and as per the D.T.O. report, the vehicles involved are scooters, which are not capable of transportation of heavy goods, therefore the cenvat credit to the manufacturer/buyer is denied: CESTAT

- Appeals disposed of: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-51-CESTAT-CHD

AMP Capital Advisors India Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST

ST - The assessee is in appeal against impugned order wherein the refund claim filed by assessee has been dismissed as time barred - Initially the refund claim was filed on 29.6.2012, the same was allowed by Commissioner (A) on 21.3.2016 - Instead of sanctioning the refund claim, the revenue preferred to file appeal before this Tribunal and this Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue - Therefore, it is the duty of Revenue that after the order of this Tribunal, they are required to refund suo moto within 3 months from 1.3.2017 - Instead of doing so, assessee was forced to file refund claim again which was filed on 13.2.2018 - The departmental officer did not stop here, they reviewed the order of the adjudicating authority sanctioning the refund and held that the refund claim is barred by limitation without any basis to drag the assessee in unnecessary litigation - The said act of department cannot be appreciated - As the assessee has filed refund claim on 29.6.2012, the said refund application is still pending for disposal, than how can Revenue officer ask to file refund claim again - The Review order is gross violation of legal principle - Accordingly, the order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeal allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

2021-TIOL-50-CESTAT-MAD

Setwin Shipping Agency Vs CC

Cus - Revocation of license - Issue arises for consideration is, whether the customs broker has failed to follow the Regulations of CBLR, 2013 & CBLR, 2018 and whether the same should entail in the revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit in addition to imposition of penalty - The appellants were expected to obtain an authorization from exporters and the same was not done - The original documents were not seen and the copies of documents submitted were not verified - This being the case, there is complicity on the part of customs broker - Looking into the circumstances of the case where the custom Broker prima facie has some documents; the person who handed over the documents to the Broker is available; it is not alleged that the exporters were fictitious and the fraudulent persons used the high security IDs and passwords of departmental officers, the omission on the part of Customs Broker becomes a bit less serious - Though there was lapse on the part of Customs Broker, same is not at the root of occurrence of fraud - The Customs Broker erred inasmuch as non-verifying the antecedents of exporters and has not obtained authorization - It is settled law that penalty should be proportionate to the offence committed - It would be too harsh to revoke the license of Customs Broker and to leave the right to livelihood of Customs Broker as well as his employees to the wind - The fact that the Customs Broker's license was suspended/revoked for a considerable period also needs to be taken on to account - The license has been under the orders of revocation/suspension for more than two years - The customs broker has been sufficiently penalized - For the commission of an offence on the part of the customs broker, the livelihood of many other employees of the firm cannot be put to jeopardy - Therefore as held by Tribunal in case of N.T. Rama Rao & Co. 2019-TIOL-3621-CESTAT-MAD , ends of justice would be met if the security deposited is forfeited and penalty imposed is upheld, while setting aside the order as far as revocation of license is concerned - The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the revocation of customs broker license of the appellant - However, the forfeiture of security deposit and imposition of penalty are upheld: CESTAT

- Appeal partly allowed: CHENNAI CESTAT