TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 21 or 23 is available only to the CHA - Revenue's appeals dismissed as not maintainable. - Customs Appeal No. 51078 of 2015, 51896 of 2015, 51898 of 2015 - Final Order No. 50379-50381/2017 - Dated:- 18-1-2017 - Ms Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Mr. V Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Govind Dixit, AR for the Appellants Shri Prabhat Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER As the issue involved in all the present three appeals of the Revenue is identical, we dispose of all the appeals by a common order. Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi vide which he has rejected the suspension of respondents' CHA license earlier vacated by order dated 22.12.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are not being governed by the general provisions of Customs Act. The Tribunal in the casa of JAC Enterprises referred (supra), has considered the said fact and has observed as under:- 6. The ld. counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection. He submits that the appeal is not maintainable inasmuch as no appeal of the department would lie to this Tribunal against any order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 23(7) of the CHALR, 1984. In this connection, he relies on the Tribunal s decision in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Impex Clearing Shipping Agency [2003 (161) E.L.T. 483 (Tri.-Mumbai], wherein it was held that the right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Shipping Agency (supra), the Tribunal after hearing both the sides, observed as under: 3. On hearing both sides and perusing the CHA Licensing Regulations framed under Section 146 of the Customs Act, I agree with the respondents that the right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal under Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 against an order passed under Regulation 21 or 23 is available only to the CHA. I, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection and hence dismiss the Revenue appeal as not maintainable. 6. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue has not shown us any contra decision of the Tribunal passed in terms of CHA Licensing Regulation laying down to the contrary. The AR's reliance on the Larger Bench decision in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
