TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ys from the date of receipt of offence report”. In that case there was no occasion for the CESTAT to consider whether the violation of the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR 2004 for submitting the enquiry report would vitiate the proceedings. No explanation has been offered by the Department for not adhering to the time limit of ninety days stipulated in Regulation 22 (5) of the CHALR. All that is stated in the memorandum of appeal is that the file could not be traced and therefore there was delay in the SCN being issued under Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR. The issue here is not so much about in the issuing of the SCN. It is about the unexplained delay of over three years in submitting the enquiry report. For the said delay the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h May, 2011. 4. The requirement of the Regulation 22 (5) is that after the inquiry pursuant to the SCN was concluded the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings and submit his report within ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1) . Consequently, in terms of Regulation 22 (5) of CHALR, the report of inquiry had to be submitted within 90 days from 14th November 2011. 5. However, as it transpired, the first Inquiry Officer retired on 8th December 2014 without submitting a report. Thereafter a second Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted a report on 19th January, 2015. On the basis of the said report, the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 was not adhered to. That time limit concerns the issuance of show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report . In that case there was no occasion for the CESTAT to consider whether the violation of the time limit under Regulation 22 (5) of CHALR 2004 for submitting the enquiry report would vitiate the proceedings. Consequently, the order passed by the CESTAT in Overseas Air Cargo Services (supra) is of no assistance to the Appellant. 9. No explanation has been offered by the Department for not adhering to the time limit of ninety days stipulated in Regulation 22 (5) of the CHALR. All that is stated in the memorandum of appeal is that the file could not be traced and therefore there was delay in the SCN bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
