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 →

Ruan Shipping & Others Versus C.C. New Delhi

2016 (11) TMI 761 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - forgery of signature by employee of appellant of 2 Superintendent (Customs) in ICD Parparganj, New Delhi as well as the signature of Shri Satish Kumar, G-Card holder of the appellant - Held that: - It is an admitted fact on record that from the date of the offence report and passing of the impugned order, there is a gap of 340 days. With regard to the time limit, the CBLR mandates that the proceedings for revocation of license shall be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on Bench of the Delhi High Court is of no assistance to the respondents. - Since the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner without adhering to the time schedule prescribed in CBLR, we are of the view that the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 of the Original Authority and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant. - Customs Appeal No.C/52898 /2015-CU [DB], Customs Appeal No.C/52328/2016-CU [DB] - Final Order No. 55102-5510 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

red to be revoked and security deposit of ₹ 75,000/- was also ordered for forfeiture. Both the orders were passed by the Commissioner, Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Customs broker, issued with the license, which is valid upto 10.10.2021. The Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj and other ICDs informed the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi that Shri Mohit Tyagi, an employee of the appellant had for .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er of Customs (General) NCH, New Delhi vide order dated 03.06.2016 has revoked the license and also forfeited security deposit made by the appellant. Hence, this present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Prem Ranjan Kumar, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that the ld. Commissioner (Customs) failed to observe the time limit prescribed under CBLR, 2013, and accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order dated 03.06.2016. 4. The ld. Advocate has submitted a date chart showing s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ays from the date of receipt of an offence report. Show Cause Notice No. 40/2015 dated 30.9.2015 issued under CBLR, 2013. 20(5) Preparation of Report of Inquiry by Deputy/Assistant Commissioner. Within 90 days from the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice Inquiry officer Report dated 29.12.2015 20(6) Commissioner to furnish a copy of Inquiry Report to CB Disagreement Note dated 25.02.2016 20(7) Passing of Order by the Commissioner. Within 90 days from the date of submission of the Inquiry R .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d orders. 7. On perusal of the case records, we find that the offence report was submitted by the Commissioner of Customs ICD, Parparganj on 02.07.2015; that the show cause notice proposing revocation of the license was issued on 30.09.2015; that the enquiry report was submitted on 29.12.2015 and that the impugned order was passed on 03.06.2016. It is an admitted fact on record that from the date of the offence report and passing of the impugned order, there is a gap of 340 days. With regard to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in various portions of the Regulations. Regulation 20(2), for instance, entitles the Commissioner, to suspend the licence of an agent, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Regulation 22 (3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days. Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22 (5). Therefore, considering the fact that the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concl .....

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