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

Commissioner of Customs (General) , Mumbai Versus Jac Enterprises

2010 (5) TMI 847 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Restoration of CHA license - breach of CHALR provisions, under Regulation 23(7) of the CHALR 1984 - non-speaking order - Appeal No. C/223/02 - Final Order No. A/161/2010-WZB/C-II(CSTB) - Dated:- 18-5-2010 - MR.P.G.CHACKO, MEMBER(JUDICIAL) AND MR.S.K.GAULE, MEMBER(TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri Manish Mohan, SDR For the Respondent : Shri Vishal Agarwal, Advocate ORDER PER : P.G.CHACKO This appeal filed by the department is against the Commissioner s order restoring the CHA licence to the re .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons. The respondent submitted a statement of defence. Subsequently, the Commissioner appointed an enquiry officer for enquiring into the charges framed against the CHA. The enquiry officers report was in favour of the CHA and the same was not accepted by the Commissioner , who appointed another enquiry officer. The second enquiry report also went in favour of the CHA. The Commissioner once again rejected the report and revoked the CHA licence on the ground of breach of CHALR provisions, under R .....

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 accept the report. The appellant shall then be entitled to furnish a reply to the Commissioner , and Mr.Asthana, his advocate, undertakes on behalf of his client that such a reply will be furnished within three weeks from the receipt of this communication. The Commissioner thereafter hear the appellant personally or through his advocate and pass orders, within a month of the date of the last hearing, according to law, and our order above. 4. Pursuant to the above order of the Tribunal, the Com .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The ld.SDR submits that the impugned order, not being a speaking order, is liable to be set aside for the purpose of fresh decision by the Commissioner. 6. The ld.counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection. He submits that the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as no appeal of the department would lie to this Tribunal against any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 23(7) of the CHALR 1984. In this connection, he relies on the Tribunal s decision in Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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