TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1236X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egulation 20 of the CBLR 2013. This required a SCN to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. In the present case, the SCN was issued only subsequent to the impugned order of the CESTAT on 30th April 2017. It is held that CESTAT was in error in directing the authorities to issue SCN within 15 days and complete the investigation within a further period of three months thereafter contrary to the CBLR 2013. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSAA No. 20 of 2017 and C.M. No. 15012 of 2017 (Stay) - - - Dated:- 23-5-2017 - S. MURALIDHAR VINOD GOEL JJ. Appellant Through: Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar with Ms. Vidushi Shubham, Advocates. Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Senior sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 by the DRI, details emerged of various CHAs who had filed shipping bills for them, and this included the Appellant. Five months later, the DRI by a letter dated 24th August 2016 forwarded a report to the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi, the Respondent. On the basis of the said report, the Respondent by the impugned order dated 31st August 2016 ordered the immediate suspension of the Appellant s licence for alleged violation of Regulations 11 (a), (d), (e) and (n) of the CBLR 2013. This suspension order was later confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 27th September 2016. 7. In the interregnum, on the basis of the investigation of the DRI, the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi issued to the exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded to the Appellant on 14th September 2016 in respect of the suspension order dated 31st August 2016. It is further stated that the final assessment order was passed on 27th September 2016. It is submitted that the SCN dated 16th September 2016 was forwarded to the Respondent on 11th April 2017 and therefore, the date of the receipt of the final offence report should be taken to be 11th April 2017. 11. In its rejoinder the Appellant pointed out that after confirmation of the suspension order dated 27th September 2016 the Respondent took no action under Regulation 20 and thereby contravened the time limits set under the CBLR 2013. It was further stated that Circular No. 9/2010 dated 8th April 2010 which was issued in the context of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts. As rightly pointed out by the Appellant, if at all, date has to be ascertained for communication of the offence report it has to be letter dated 24th August 2016 on which the date received from the DRI regarding the alleged illegal export. 15. In any event, the CESTAT had no jurisdiction to extend time already set down in the CBLR 2013. Those time limits are sacrosanct as explained by the Court in several decisions including Indair Carrier Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (337) ELT 41 (Del), Commissioner v. S.K. Logistics 2016 (337) ELT 39 (Del) and Overseas Air Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi 2016 (340) ELT 119 (Del). 16. The above legal position was reiterat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
