SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 31 August 2001, passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, hereinafter referred to as the 'revisionary authority', in petitioner's revision petition filed under Section 129-DD of the Customs Act, 1962, is under challenge in this writ petitio n. By the impugned order, the revisionary authority has declined to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (FTT), New Delhi, imposing a penalty of Rs.2,07,840/- under Section 35 A(1) {clarified in the impugned order as Section 38(3)} of the Finance Act, 1979 (as amended){for short the Act} read with Rule 4 of the Foreign Travel Tax Rules, 1979 (as amended), for delay in the deposit of foreign travel tax (for short 'FTT'). Besides, a penalty of Rs.2,000/- under Rule 10-A and and interest at 20% was also levied by the Assistant Commissioner for delay in furnishing of the return for the FTT collected. However, there is no serious challenge to the latter two levies.

(2.) The background facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows: The petitioner, a foreign company, is engaged in the carriage of passengers. It has been authorised to collect FTT from the passengers. During the month of July 1997, the petitioner collected a sum of Rs.10,36,200/- as FTT and deposited the same in the account of the Central Government on 1 September 1997. Noticing that there was a delay of two days in the deposit of the said amount to the credit of the Central Government and the FTT return had also been submitted on 2 September 1997, a notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty/interest should not be imposed on them for delayed payment of FTT and for late submission of return thereof. Upon consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, the Assistant Commissioner imposed the aforenoted penalties and interest. Petitioner's appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) against the said order was unsuccessful. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner carried the matter to the Central Government by preferring a revision petition. As noted above, the revisionary authority has dismissed the petition. Hence the present petition.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties.