Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Rajinder P. Kapur Versus CC, New Delhi

2018 (2) TMI 849 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Suspension of CHA License - validity of proceedings - time limit as per CBLR 2013 - Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 - Held that: - In the present case, the said notice has been issued, admittedly, on 9.12.2016 only, much later than 90 days limit. We note that by now, it is well settled principle that has been upheld by the various High Courts as well as by this Tribunal that the time limit mentioned in the CBLR, 2013 are mandatory and are to be statutorily enforced in proceedings against Customs Bro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

filed by the Revenue and misc. application for condonation of delay in filing such cross objection are listed. 2. Ld. AR for the Revenue submitted that the cross objection, filed after 5 days delay, is only comments on the appeal by the appellant and no additional or specific grievance for the Revenue is agitated. Accordingly, by allowing the COD application, the cross objection is taken on record. Since the appeal is with reference to revocation of licence of Customs House Agent given to the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

The case was investigated by the officers of SIIB, Customs House, New Delhi. The investigating officers reported the gist of the fact along with role of the appellant to the Commissioner of Customs (General) through their letter dated 31.05.2016. Thereafter, the same was followed-up by letter dated 15.07.2016 addressed to the Superintendent (Policy) in the office of the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Customs House, New Delhi and letter dated 7.10.2016 addressed to the Commissioner of Cu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the license of the appellant was issued on 26.05.2017. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant limited her submissions only on the question of limitation and the order being without jurisdiction. Her submission is that the suspension of the appellant licence was ordered on 10.06.2016 based on the preliminary offence report dated 31.05.2016 given by the Investigating Officer to the licensing authority. Thereafter, follow-up letters were issued by the investigating officers. Since the suspensi .....

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 the appeal stating that the investigation was a continuing one. The offence report date 31.05.2016 was only a preliminary report followed by two more reports, which contained more details. It is necessary to go through investigation before a show cause notice was issued. Accordingly, considering the seriousness of the offence, he pleaded that the Department is well within its right to proceed against the appellant and revoke the licence. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal 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

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version