9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted by Ms. Suchitra Sharma, Id, AR. 3. The appellant based on appeal memorandum mainly submits as follows: (i) Continuing suspension of CB licence without issuing the notice under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 is not sustainable. (ii) The suspension under Regulation 19 ibid in itself was wrong and further continuation of suspension of CB licence, without issue of the show cause notice within specified time period of 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report under Regulation 20 is contrary to statutory provision. (iii) In A. M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs ((Imports) Chennai-2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.) and in Lohia Travels & Cargo vs. CC (General), New Delhi -2016 (331) ELT 614 (Tri. Del.) it has been held that the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013 is clear that within 90 days on receipt of the offence report, a show cause notice has to be issued to the said custom broker for revocation of licence or imposition of penalty. In the present case, the Revenue has confirmed the suspension of the custom broker licence vide the impugned order dated 13.04.2016 (which is in the nature of penalty). However, no show cause notice in writing was issued to the custom broker for which time limit is 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report against the custom broker. In the present case, the said time limit of 90 days has expired long back. If the date of receipt of offence report is taken as 15.03.2016, when the suspension of licence was made vide order No. 13/SM ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s done by the impugned order dated 13.04.2016, the inaction of Revenue by non issuance of show cause notice as per Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013 makes continuing suspension invalid in the eyes of law. The result is that the appellant's right to carry on his profession and to earn livelihood has been affected without following the proper procedure prescribed under relevant provisions of CBLR, 2013. In this regard CESTAT Chennai in the case of Eltec Associates vs. CC (Port-Import) Chennai - 2016 (334) ELT 124 (Tri. Chennai) quotes Tribunal's order in the case of Manjunatha Shipping Services vs. Commissioner - 2014 (313) ELT 226 (Tri.) and Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in case of R. Sandosh Kumar (in W.P. No. 8409 of 2013 dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
