Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Lohia Travels And Cargo Versus Commissioner of Customs (General) , New Delhi

2015 (12) TMI 229 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Suspension of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - imposition of penalty - Held that:- There is no clarity about receipt of an offence report or the date of such receipt hence even if it is assumed that the date of order of immediate suspension is taken for reckoning the time limit for issue of show cause notice, the notice issued on 27.08.2014 is issued almost five months after the due date. Similarly, the inquiry report by the Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner is to be made within ninet .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 There are two appeals filed by the appellants. One is relating to suspension of CHA license, the other one is relating to revocation of license alongwith forfeiture of security deposit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

m House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR, 2004)/ Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013). 2. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice for imposition of penalty under Customs Act, 1962 on 27.09.2013. On 06.12.2013 order for suspending their CHA license was issued. On 28.01.2014 order for confirming the suspension was issued. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice on 27.08.2014 for revocation of their CHA/ CB license. The inquiry report by the Deput .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing 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 of the Show Cause Notice. 22(7) 20(7) Passing of Order by the Commissioner. Within 90 Days from the date of submission of the Inquiry Report. T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow cause notice. In the present case, there is a delay of three months 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. 5. The impugned order also dealt with the question of time bar as pleaded by appellant. Ld. Commissioner stated that the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A. M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Che .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he 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 that it is an accepted fact that the time limit .....

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 Government of India to extent the imposition of anti-dumping duty after the expiry period. The Hon'ble High Court was dealing with entirely different set of legal provisions and facts and circumstances. We find the Hon'ble High Court decision in A. M. Ahamed & Co. (supra) is directly dealing with CBLR and the legal sanctity of time limit prescribed under the Regulations. As such, we find the order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule in eve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version