TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 229X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs after the time limit prescribed under the said Regulation. There is also a delay in issuing the impugned order of revocation which is beyond ninety days of submission of inquiry report. - impugned order of the original authority is issued in violation of the provisions of CHALR, 2004 /CBLR, 2013 and is not legally sustainable. The same is to be set-aside - Decided in favour of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 51977 of 2014 And Customs Appeal No. 52538 of 2015 - Final Order Nos. C/A/53232-53233/2015-CU(DB) - Dated:- 14-10-2015 - G Raghuram, President And B Ravichandran, Member (T) For the Appellant : Ms Vibha Narag alongwith Ms. Neelam Murpana Advs For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Per B Ravichandran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot been followed by the Commissioner in the proceedings against them. None of the time limits prescribed therein have been adhered to. The time schedules prescribed under these regulations during the relevant period are as follows: CHALR, 2004 CBLR, 2013 Purpose Specified Time Period 22(1) 20(1) Issuance of Show Cause Notice to the CHA/CB by the Commissioner. Within 90 Days from the date of receipt of an offence report. 22(5) 20(5) Preparation of Report of Inquiry by the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner. Within 90 Days from the date of issuance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh Court decision in the case of Hyundai Motors India Ltd. vs. Union of India - 2015 (318) ELT 83 (Mad.) to hold that the time limit prescribed in sub-ordinate legislation can only be taken as directory and not mandatory. 6. We find that the original authority is in complete error in stating that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in A. M. Ahamed Co. (supra) dealt with only what is an 'offence report'. The Hon'ble High Court categorically held that the Commissioner is duty bound to initiate proceedings within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report. The Hon'ble High Court held that it is not the case of Revenue that time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) is only directory and not mandatory. It was held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d finds no infirmity in this regard. We are not able to appreciate such contradiction in the original authority's finding. On the one hand, he finds that the inquiry report, which is a verbatim reproduction of show cause notice issued under Customs Act and as such he is not taking cognizance of the said report; on the other hand, he finds no infirmity in the report. It is not clear, if inquiry report was not given cognizance, then on what material records the original authority can proceed and decide the case resulting in the revocation of license of the appellant. 8 Considering the above discussion, we find that the impugned order of the original authority is issued in violation of the provisions of CHALR, 2004 /CBLR, 2013 and is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
