Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2017 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 621 - HC - CustomsValidity of SCN - revocation of CHA license - time limit for issuance of SCN - Whether the orders for revocation of licence of the appellant is without jurisdiction in that the show cause notice for the same was issued beyond the mandatory time limit of 90 days as fixed by Regulation 20(1) of the CHALR, 2004? - Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR, 2004. Held that: - the Court held that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period and was not sustainable - reliance placed in the case of Sanco Trans Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs Sea Port/Imports Customs House [2015 (7) TMI 455 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that when the impugned show cause notice has been issued beyond the statutory period, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the same cannot be sustained for want of jurisdiction. Once the limitation prescribed is mandatory, as has been declared by the courts of law, it cannot be stated that, because of the other issues, that is the merit of the case, this mandatory requirement of the limitation can be ignored. It is not the case of the 1st respondent that the 90 days limitation contemplated under Regulation 22(1), is directory. It is also not the case of the 1st respondent that the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period of 90 days from the date of offence report - Since the offence report was dated 22.9.2010 and the show cause notice, admittedly, was issued only on 18.11.2011, there can be no doubt that the said show cause notice was issued well beyond the period of limitation of 90 days. The Revenue has not issued the show cause notice dated 18.11.2011 within the period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 22(1) CHALR, 2004 and thus, the consequent proceedings involving revocation of the appellant's CHA licence and forfeiture of its security deposit, is unlawful. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
|