Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1319 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - DEPB Claim - misdeclaration of an export consignment of “rubber strips” - case of Revenue is that though the adjudicating authority has held that the CHA (the respondent herein) was guilty of non-observance of the procedures laid down in the CHALR, 2004, but has taken a lenient view of ordering only forfeiture of security deposit and allowed the licence to become operative on making fresh deposit - Held that:- The present impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs in his administrative capacity and not in context with matter relating to levy of tax. Since such order was passed under the CHALR, 1984, the author of such order cannot be termed as an adjudicating authority, whose order can be appealed against before the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, in absence of any specific provisions made in the Customs statute, the present appeal filed by Revenue is not maintainable before the Tribunal. Under the identical situation, the Tribunal in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) , MUMBAI VERSUS MUKADAM FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT LTD [2017 (5) TMI 798 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that right to appeal against the CHALR, 1984 before the Tribunal is only available to the CHA and Revenue cannot be termed as an “aggrieved party” against the decision concerning the licensing regulations for filing appeal before the Tribunal - Revenue’s appeal is not maintainable before this Tribunal for consideration of the grounds urged therein. The appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed on the grounds of maintainability.
|