Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (8) TMI 847 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence under Regulation 20(2) / 20(3) of CHAR 2004 - Report from investigating Authority came to record on 11.01.2013 - The order of suspension dated 30.01.2013, crossed limitation of 15 days prescribed under Regulation 20(2) - Held that:- limitation for proceeding under regulation 20(3) ought to have started from 27.01.2013 since fifteen from 11.01.2013 expired on 26.01.2013. Notice initiating proceeding under regulation 20(3) was issued on 01.02.2013 and the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 confirming suspension was passed under regulation 20(3) of CHALR 2004. The order so passed also suffered from legal infirmity on different count apart from limitation stated above. Law of limitation is not casually enacted in the statute book. When right to profession is taken away by law, that is to be done in accordance with law following due process and within the time frame prescribed there under. Law of limitation is construed in the manner that is designed in the enactment. Its object should not be frustrated. In the absence of power on the Tribunal to condone the delay prayed by Revenue, that is not entertainable. Suspension of CHA licence takes away right to profession by a CHA. Withdrawal or denial of such right is construed to be penal in character. Therefore law of limitation enacted in both the sub-regulations is mandatory. Non-compliance thereto makes the orders of suspension unsustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant.
|