TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y/Shipping Bill or other documents. He was also not authorised as a H-Card holder sign any such documents. It is not known as to whether Shri Deepak Arora was permitting his H-Card holder employee to function in a manner not contemplated under CHALR'84, but even if it was done without the CHA's knowledge, it shows that there was a lack of supervision and proper control on the part of the CHA. I do not agree that although the licence was suspended in 1993, the two Inquiry Officers did not submit any Inquiry Report and the matter has dragged on for about seven years, causing hardship to the CHA. While I do not hold any brief for the Department for the delay in finalising the case and the consequent loss of business and tension for the CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of punishment in this regard is left to adjudicating authority. Other factors viz. loss of business, suspension of licence for seven years and that CHA has suffered a lot and learnt his lesson the hard way, may be taken note of while deciding the quantum of punishment. Ld. Counsel submits that the Commissioner in her order observed that it shows that there was lack of supervision and proper control on the part of the CHA. Ld. Counsel submits that this finding is contrary to the observations made by the Inquiry Officer. He submits that the Inquiry Officer concluded that there was contravention of Regulation 14(b). He submits that Regulation 14(b) stipulated that CHA shall transact the business through authorised representative. He submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the evidence on records. We have considered carefully the submissions made by the Counsel in regard to the finding of the Inquiry Officer as also the conclusion of the adjudicating authority. Ld. Counsel during his argument had referred to the case decided by this Tribunal in the case of Interport Impex (P) Limited [1999 (107) E.L.T. 36]. In that case, this Tribunal had held that "It may be, that the firm did not exercise its supervision and control over its employees specified in sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 20. This however, is not sufficient to suspend the licence in the manner, in which it has been done. The provisions of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21 should be resorted to when it is necessary to immediately stop the function ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
