Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Naresh Kumar Meena Versus Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur

2015 (7) TMI 24 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Revocation of CHA license - Subletting of license - whether the work of import/export executed by G and H card holder is an act of subletting or not - Held that:- All G and H card holders are the employees of the appellant. Apart from the employment of the appellant these G and H card holders are providing certain other services to the exporter/importers for that they are provided directly dealing with the importer/exporter but for custom clearances they are working as G and H card holder of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CHA did not have authorisation in writing from any of the exporters. Admittedly, it was not a case of subletting of CHA license, therefore, the same is not relevant here. Further, we find that in the case of OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. (2011 (3) TMI 801 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) the facts of the case were that the CHA permitting employees of client to use their CHA license before the Custom authorities for monetary gain and removal of goods without obtaining authorisation from importer/exporter. Therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

- Ashok Jindal, Member (J) And R K Singh, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri L P Asthana, Adv. For the Respondent : Smt Suchitra Sharma, DR ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the CHA licence has been revoked by the ld. Commissioner in the impugned order dated 2nd January 2012. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a CHA holding CHA Licence No. 2/CHAL/R/99, it is alleged that the appellant has sublet their CHA licence by allowi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o M/s IPG Cargo Services Pvt. Ltd. The said issue came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal held that as Shri I.P. Gupta himself is a G. Card holder and as well as proprietor of M/s IPG Cargo Services Ltd. and there was no allegation of loss of revenue. Therefore, the order of revocation of CHA licence was set aside. The said decision was taken by Revenue before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan but the Hon'ble High Court rejected the prayer of staying the operation of the order p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

prietor of M/s Shree Nath Services. (iv) Shri Manohar Singh, H card holder and proprietor of M/s the Foremost Company. (v) M/s National Tools (Export), Jodhpur. (vi) M/s Siddhartha Art Exports, Jodhpur. (vii) M/s Shree Vijay Laxmi Enterprises, Jodhpur. (viii) M/s Artisan Alliance, Jodhpur. (ix) M/s Lucky Creations, Jodhpur. (x) M/s Eastern Exports, New Delhi. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant for contravention of the Regulation 12, 13(a), 13(k) and 19(5) of CHALR, 2004, The content .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ssue are at Jaipur and not in Jodhpur. Therefore the request of cross examination of these persons at Jaipur was not allowed. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel that subletting of their licence to G and H card holder is not correct. In fact these G and H card holders are employees of the appellant which they have admitted and payments were made to them out of money received from them executing the export functions. He further submits that all the G and H card holders are the proprietor of c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot received any bills from the appellant does not mean that the appellant has sublet their CHA licence. Except these statements, no evidence was produced by Revenue that money consideration was received by the appellant from G and H card holders. The allegation levelled against the appellants are based on merely assumptions and presumptions. He further submits that all G and H card holders were duly appointed by the appellant and their respective cards have been issued by Custom authorities afte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t. Moreover, the appellant has receiving amount from the G and H card holders for clearance of the goods. Therefore, the charge of subletting has been proved. In these circumstances, CHA license rightly been revoked by the AR. To support his contention he relied on the decision of S.S.V. Bhadra Shipping Agencies Vs. CC, Chennai - 2005 (192) ELT 440 (Tri-Chennai), M.D. Sadrani Vs. Union of India - 2010 (250) ELT 357 (Bom.) , Shree Venkatesh Shipping Service P. Ltd. Vs. CC (G), Mumbai- I - 2010 (2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

exporter/importers for that they are provided directly dealing with the importer/exporter but for custom clearances they are working as G and H card holder of the appellant and in the said capacity they are filing the documents. The ld. AR relied on certain case laws which are analysed hereunder. In the case of S.S.V. Badra (supra) the facts of the case were that the CHA allowed another person to file bill of entry in their name and the issue of subletting was not before this Tribunal. Therefor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

exporters. Admittedly, it was not a case of subletting of CHA license, therefore, the same is not relevant here. Further, we find that in the case of OTA Kandla Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the facts of the case were that the CHA permitting employees of client to use their CHA license before the Custom authorities for monetary gain and removal of goods without obtaining authorisation from importer/exporter. Therefore the said facts are not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. Further, we find that sim .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of Shri Harish Singh the partner of M/s A.H. Enterprises is also recorded. Thereafter, the premises of the appellant were searched and statement of the appellant was taken on 24.08.2013. Thereafter, through various letters dated 24.08.2013 and 25.08.2013, the appellant admitted the guilt and the CHA licence was suspended on 28.08.2013. Post-suspension, hearing was granted to the appellant and order of suspension of CBL dated 28.08.2013 was confirmed. Thereafter, a show cause notice issued to the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d arguments advanced by both the sides, the issue before us is that in the factual matrix of the case where the appellant has sublet their CBL to M/s A.H. Enterprises or not. 7. The admitted fact is that Shri Harish Singh partner of M/s A.H. Enterprises is a G-Card holder of appellant i.e., Shri Qimati Lal Sharma. As G-Card holder, Shri Harish Singh is entitled to deal with the importer/exporter on behalf of the appellant and also entitled to file shipping bills/bills of entry and can entertain .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version