TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1060X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the SCN issued for revocation of the Appellant’s license and nothing else. If the Appellant was aggrieved by the order of this Court granting extension of time for completion of the enquiry and passing of the revocation order, the Appellant could have further challenged the said order. That, however, was not done by the Appellant. In these circumstances, the CESTAT was right in holding that the Appellant could not thereafter contend that the time limits under Regulation 22 of the CHALR having been breached. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - CUSAA 24/2016 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Chander Shekhar, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.A.K.Prasad, Advocate with Ms.Priyanka Goel, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Sanjeev Narual, Advocate with Mr.Abhishek Ghai, Advocate ORDER 1. This is an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) challenging an order dated 3rd February, 2016 passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in appeal No. C/A/50156/2016 whereby the appeal of the Appellant against the order dated 22nd April, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Respondent) revoking the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring. By order dated 12th May, 2014, this Court quashed the enquiry report and directed the Respondent to give a fresh hearing to the Appellant within four months and within two weeks thereafter pass a fresh order confirming or revoking the suspension order . 9. It is plain that at this stage, therefore, the issue was concerning the passing an order either confirming or revoking the suspension order. At this stage the question of revocation of the Appellant s license was not being considered. 10. Pursuant to the above order, a personal hearing was fixed and by order dated 8th October 2014, the Respondent confirmed the suspension of the Appellant s license. This rendered the pending appeal of the Appellant before the CESTAT infructuous. 11. Meanwhile, the proceedings pursuant to the SCN dated 13th January 2014 proposing the revocation of the Appellant s license continued. On 29th December, 2014 the Appellant appeared before the Deputy Commissioner for a personal hearing. 12. In the revocation of license proceedings, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 2nd March, 2015 and the Appellant submitted objections against the said report on 1st April, 2015. 13. As far ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and other provisions of law and pass final orders at the earliest preferably within three months from today. The appeal is dismissed in the above terms. 14. In the revocation proceedings, after hearing the Appellant and considering its written submissions, an order dated 22nd April, 2015 was passed by the Respondent revoking the license of the Appellant. The full security amount of ₹ 50,000/- deposited by the Appellant was forfeited. The G-Card of the Appellant s employee was also ordered to be surrendered. 15. Aggrieved by the above order of revocation, an appeal was filed before the CESTAT. By the impugned order dated 9th February 2016, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal. The present appeal is against the said order. 16. When the present appeal was first heard on 2nd September 2016, the following order was passed by this Court: Admit. The following question of law arises for consideration: Did the CESTAT fell into error in rejecting the appellant's contention that in the circumstances of the case the revocation was not sustainable in law for exceeding the time limit stipulated for commencement of proceedings? Issue notice of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms House Agent to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defence and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of the provisions contained in sub- regulation (2) to regulation 20. 21. It is, therefore, clear that Regulation 20 provides for suspension or revocation of license and Regulation 22 deals with the procedure therefor. At the time when the Court passed its order dated 25th February, 2015 an SCN had already been issued for the revocation of the Appellant s license. Therefore, this fact was present in the minds of both the counsel for the Appellant as well as the Respondent and naturally of the Court as well. The only thing that remained to be done was to complete the enquiry pursuant to such SCN. The direction issued obviously related to the enquiry that was required to be undertaken for revocation of the Appellant s license. It is for that p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
