TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulations, 2013 - impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal(s) Involved: C/21692/2017-DB - Final Order No. 20191 / 2018 - Dated:- 13-2-2018 - MR. SS GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MR. V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER Shri ME S, HIREMATH, Advocate, For the Appellant Smt. Kavitha Podwal, Superintendent(AR), For the Respondent Per: v. PADMANABHAN The appellant was issued Customs Brokers Licence by Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, for short). The appellant filed the shipping bill on behalf of M/S. Karan Imports Exports, Chennai declaring export of Granite Slabs Snow White . However, the Customs authorities found that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2017, the Adjudicating Authority passed this order only on 26/09/2017 i.e. after the mandatory time limit of 90 days. Accordingly, he submitted that the impugned order merits to be set aside for violation of the time limits. In this connection, he also relied upon various decisions wherein it has been held that violation of mandatory time limit will render the order of revocation as unsustainable, like Lohia Travels Cargo Vs. CC (General), New Delhi [2016(331) ELT 614 (Tri. Del.)] and Patriot Freight Logistics System vs, CC, Chennai [2017(350) ELT 59 (Mad.)]. He also relied upon various other decisions to the same effect. 4. The learned AR justified the impugned order. It is her submission that the appellant has been found involved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n consistently held by the Hon'ble High Courts as well as Tribunals that violation of the time limits strictly specified in the CBLR as well as the successor Regulations are to be viewed seriously. In the case of Lohia Travels Cargo, the Division Bench of the Tribunal has observed as follows: - 6. We find that the original authority is in complete error in stating that the Hon'ble Madras High Court in A.M. Ahamed Co. (supra) dealt with only is an offence report . The hon ble high court categorically held that the commissioner is duty bound to initiate proceedings within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report. The Hon'ble High Court held that it is not the case of Revenue that time limit prescribed in Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said report is not in violation of Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 and finds no infirmity in this regard. We are not able to appreciate such contradiction in the original authority's finding. On the one hand, he finds that the inquiry report, which is a verbatim reproduction of show cause notice issued under Customs Act and as such he is not taking cognizance of the said report; on the other hand, he finds no infirmity in the report. It is not clear, if inquiry report was not given cognizance, then on what material records the original authority can proceed and decide the case resulting in the revocation of licence of the appellant. 8. Considering the above discussion, we find that the impugned order of the original authority is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
