TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(1) ibid was issued on 05.06.2012 but the inquiry report was submitted on 20.03.2015 i.e. more than 21 months after issuance of SCN - the impugned order is unsustainable on account of time bar - appeal disposed off - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Stay Application No. C/Stay/52100/2015, Customs Appeal No. C/53407/2015-[DB] - Final Order No. 52105 /2016 - Dated:- 8-6-2016 - Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member ( Technical ) Mr. Rajesh Kumar for the Appellant Mr. S.K. Sheoran (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per R. K. Singh Appeal has been filed against Commissioner of Customs New Delhi's order dated 15.06.2015 in terms of which CHA license of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation 22(1) ibid was issued on 05.06.2012 but the inquiry report was submitted on 20.03.2015 i.e. more than 21 months after issuance of SCN under. CHA Regulation No. 22(5) states under: 5 At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs 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 Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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). It may be observed that the time line in Regulation 19(2) of CBLR for passing the order after hearing 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 afo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
