TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016-CU[DB] - Dated:- 8-6-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. R. K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishankant (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mrs. Suchitra Sharma (DR) ORDER PER R. K. SINGH: Appeal has been filed against Commissioner of Customs New Delhi's order dated 22/12/2015 in terms of which CHA license of the appellant was revoked in terms of the Regulation 22(7) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations 2004 as amended and the amount of security was also forfeited. 2. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant made submissions on the merits of case to plead that offence of the appellant was not so grave as to warrant revocation of CHA license. However, we do not fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under sub-Regulation 1 . It is evident from the aforesaid sub Regulation that the inquiry officer was required to submit his report within 90 days of the issuance of notice under Regulation 22(1). Thus, breach of time limit prescribed under Regulation 22(5) is clearly established. Madras High Court in the case of A M Ahmad (supra) in effect has clearly held that breach of the time limit prescribed in Regulation 22 is fatal to the order and set aside the order on that ground. As regards the judgment of Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Burliegh International (supra) cited by Ld. DR, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing is preceded by word may because of which Delhi High Court did not regard it to be mandatory while the time line in Regulation 22(5) is preceded by shall because of which Madras High Court held the same to be mandatory. Thus, we do not find any disharmony between the judgments of Madras High Court in the case of AM Ahmad (Supra) and the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Burleigh International (supra). 6. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, and in the wake of the precedent set by the Madras High Court in the case of AM Ahmad (supra), the impugned order is unsustainable on account of time bar. We may add that Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner vs Monsanto Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (35) STR 177 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
