TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hetty with Advait M. Sethna, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, (SDR), for the Respondent. [Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The appellants M/s. Real Logistics Shipping Agencies (CHA) has filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Customs canceling the Licence No. PN/R/Miraj/010/2004 dated 22-4-2004 issued to them. 2. After hearing both the sides at length on the stay application, we find it that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after considering the impugned order and with the consent of both the sides, we take up the appeal for final disposal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were granted licence in the name of Real Logistic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration after following the principle of natural justice. Accordingly, the Commissioner passed the impugned order on 29-4-10 canceling the licence of the appellants firm. Aggrieved from the said order of cancellation of licence the appellants are before us. 4. The learned DR took an objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal on the ground that this order does not have a preamble which indicates where the appeal of this order lies. He further submitted that it is an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod of sixty days to grant the licence afresh under Regulation 9. Thereafter the Commissioner will examine the case and if nothing found adverse against the firm, will grant a fresh licence of the category held by the appellant prior to change in constitution. There is no dispute that the appellants have fulfilled their obligation to intimate within 60 days of the change in constitution. The Commissioner in the impugned order has given some other grounds that it is a case of transfer of licence under Regulation 12 which is not permissible under law. The learned Advocate also produced the Form 'E' under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which confirms the notice of the change of constitution of the firm effecting the change by indicating Shri Har ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hares to the incoming partner, the same is not permissible. 8.On careful examination of the submissions made by both sides, we find that it is neither a case of transfer of licence nor a case of sale of licence to the incoming partner. The appellant M/s. Real Logistics Shipping Agencies remain the same and only the constitution of the partnership firm underwent a change by inducting a new partner in the said partnership firm. The provisions of Regulation 15 are applicable to this case which caused an obligation on the appellants to intimate to the Customs within 60 days of the change in constitution. The appellants have fulfilled the same. Now it is the duty of the Commissioner of Customs to verify the documents as to whether the change i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
