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 P.I. Logistics (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC (I&G) , New Delhi

2016 (5) TMI 602 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Revokation of CHA licence - Disagreement with the enquiry report - advice to the client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act and exercise of due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information with reference to work relating to clearance of cargo - Import of deodorants, perfumes - Held that:- the enquiry report analyzed various evidences with reference to these allegations and found that they are not proved. The enquiry report in full was communicated to the appellant by the As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

resentation. - Apparently, the appellant gave a reply reiterating their defence and supporting the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant has been put to notice on the disagreement of the Original Authority with any part of the enquiry report. Therefore, it is clear that the present impugned order issued without indicating the disagreement with the enquiry report and getting the response of the appellant, is in clear violation of principles of natura .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Gupta, Authorized Representative (Jt. CDR) ORDER PER. B. RAVICHANDRAN :- The appellant is a Custom House Agent. The present appeal is against order dated 06/10/2015 passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi under the licence of the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant as a Custom House Agent filed various bills of entry for clearance of imported cargo by M/s Andani Corp., New Delhi. Investigations conducted by officers o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g their licence for various violations of the said Regulations. The present impugned order was issued in conclusion of the said proceedings. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submitted that :- (i) the appellant have not violated any provisions of CBLR, 2013. This is clearly evident as per the enquiry report dated 30/06/2015 submitted by the Deputy Commissioner as per the directions of the Commissioner in the show cause notice dated 16/4/2015. The Inquiry Officer has examined in det .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd their case; (iii) the impugned order, which should have been passed within 90 days of the enquiry report was passed beyond that period as the enquiry report was dated 30/06/2015 and the impugned order was passed on 06/10/2015. As such, the order-in-original which was not passed within the time limit as prescribed by the CBLR, 2013 is without jurisdiction. 3. The learned AR opposed the submissions of the appellant. It is submitted that a show cause notice has already been issued to the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner on 10/07/2015 and as such the impugned order has been passed within the period of 90 days. 4. We have heard both the sides and examined the appeal records. We find that out of 4 charges leveled against the appellant the Original Authority agreed with the enquiry report on first two charges and held the appellant has not violated any provisions as alleged. The present appeal deals with only the revocation of licence on the view of the Original Authority in disagreement with the enquiry repor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ommunicated to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner on 20/07/2015. A perusal of the said communication indicates that it enclosed the enquiry report and requested the appellant to submit their representation, if any, within 30 days in terms of Regulation 20 (6) of CBLR, 2013. There is no indication or reference to any possible difference of opinion with reference to the enquiry report as entertained by the Original Authority. In other words, the enquiry report which exonerated the appella .....

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