9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent : Shri Rajiv Gupta, DR ORDER PER B. RAVICHANDRAN: The appeal is against the order dated 10.12.2014 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal revoking the CHA license of the appellant and ordered for the forfeiture of deposits made by him with the Department. The appellants are holding Customs House Agent License issued by Commissioner Bhopal and were handling customs clearances work of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 50616/2014 dated 11.02.2014. The direction was given to the adjudicating authority to complete their regular proceedings expeditiously. The appellants again moved to the Honble High court of Madhya Pradesh who directed the competent authority to decide the case within a month. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 10.12.2014 was issued revoking the licenses of the appellant. 2. The Ld. Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any background verification of their client. Further, the documents appeared to have been verified by the appellant are not genuine as the alleged exporter totally denied their involvement in the case. Regarding time limits as prescribed by the Regulation to complete the proceedings, the Ld. AR submitted that the appellant repeatedly approached the Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal in the inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cases by the Honble Supreme Court, the High Court arrived at the conclusion that the time limit mentioned in the CHA regulations after 08.04.2010 are mandatory and action beyond the prescribed time limit will be barred by limitation and will be held as without jurisdiction. 5. Keeping this in view, the evidence of the present case are examined. There is no offence report as such recorded by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Madras High Courts observation in AM Ahmad & Co. 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.). Further, decision on the show cause notice was taken more than 16 months after the issue which again is beyond the time limits mentioned in the said Regulation. As such without going into the merits of the case we find that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is barred by limitation and consequently with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
