Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 761 - CESTAT NEW DELHIRevocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - forgery of signature by employee of appellant of 2 Superintendent (Customs) in ICD Parparganj, New Delhi as well as the signature of Shri Satish Kumar, G-Card holder of the appellant - Held that: - It is an admitted fact on record that from the date of the offence report and passing of the impugned order, there is a gap of 340 days. With regard to the time limit, the CBLR mandates that the proceedings for revocation of license shall be completed within 270 days (9 months) from the date of receipt of offence report. With regard to the time limit, the Hon ble High Court in the case of Madras A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai [2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] have held that On the question that the first respondent is duty bound to initiate proceedings within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report, there are no two opinions, at least before me. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is of no assistance to the respondents. Since the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner without adhering to the time schedule prescribed in CBLR, we are of the view that the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 of the Original Authority and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.
|