9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Stay application against Order-in-Original No. 64/2007-08 dated 26-2-2008 - Allegations of aiding and abetting in misdeclaration of imported goods - Exercise of powers under Rule 21 of CHALR, 2004 - Prohibition of CHA from operating in Mumbai Commissionerate - Revocation of license. Analysis: The stay application was filed against Order-in-Original No. 64/2007-08, which alleged that the appellant, a CHA firm, aided and abetted the importer in misdeclaring imported goods. The Senior Counsel argued that the adjudicating authority's order was based on different facts than the allegations in the notice. He highlighted previous Tribunal findings where penalties were set aside in similar cases. He also referenced a judgment from the Bangalore Bench on an identical issue with the same consignment. The main issue was the revocation of the CHA's license under Rule 21 of CHALR, 2004. The Jt. CDR supported the adjudicating authority's findings, stating that despite the importer moving the Settlement Commission, there was still evidence of misdeclaration. Upon review, it was found that the adjudicating authority invoked Rule 21 of CHALR to prohibit the appellant, even though notices were issued under Regulation 22. The Division Bench had previously ruled that no penal action could be taken against the appellant for aiding in duty evasion. Therefore, the order prohibiting the appellant from conducting business in the Mumbai Commissionerate was stayed until the appeal's disposal. Given the nature of the issue concerning the CHA's day-to-day business, the appeal was scheduled for 23-4-2008. The operation of the impugned order was stayed immediately to allow for a fair hearing. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of proper notice regarding the prohibition of the CHA's operations and previous findings that the appellant had not aided in duty evasion. The stay was deemed necessary pending the appeal's resolution to prevent undue harm to the appellant's business operations.
|
