TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that in the said case time limits are mandatory and not mere directory. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/85013/2018 - Order No. A/86728 / 2018 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Raju, Member ( Technical ) Shri C. K. Chaturvedi, Consultant for Appellant Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER Per : Raju This appeal has been filed by M/s Joshi Jatashankar Liladhar and Sons against order dated 16.12.2017 revoking their Customs Broker licence for forfeiture of security deposit. 2. The appellant have contended that articles of charges have wrongly been confirmed against as they have not faulted under CBLR, 2013. Howe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MUM. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra Co. 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC), and the decision of Tribunal in the case of Baraskar Brothers Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai 2016-TIOL-482-CESTAT-MUM. 4. We have gone through the rival submission, the appellant have submitted various relevant dates in para d of the ground of appeal in the appeal memorandum. The same is reproduced as below:- (i) The offence report is dated 3.5.2016 as stated in the Grounds of Imputation and in the impugned order. However the date of receipt of the offence report in the office of the learned Principal Commissioner is not known since the same has not been stated anywhere in the rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted his report on 31.7.2017 i.e after 135 days after institution of inquiry even though the order appointing the inquiry officer clearly stipulated that the inquiry should be completed in three months. (vii) The copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the Appellant on 22.9.2017 along with the intimation for the personal hearing which was to be held on 25.9.2017. In terms of Regulation 20(6) the period for making representation has been stipulated to be not less than 30 days. The Appellant was given a period of only 3 days to submit the representation and that too has not been taken into consideration. (viii) In terms of Regulation 20(7) the learned Principal Commissioner should have passed the order by 19.2.2017 going by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt of Delhi in the case of Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (337) ELT 41 (Del.) in para 6 7 of the said order following has been observed:- 6. The time-limits in the CHALR, 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct. The aforesaid time-limits were engrafted into Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 by a Notification No. 30/2010-Cus. (N.T.), dated 8th April, 2010. Simultaneously, the CBEC issued Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8th April, 2010 clarifying the procedures governing the suspension and revocation of CHA licence. In Para 7.1 of the said Circular, it was noted as under : 7.1 The present procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Madras High Court in Sanco Trans Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Sea Port/Imports, Chennai - 2015 (322) E.L.T. 170 (Mad.) and Commissioner v. Eltece Associates - 2016 (334) E.L.T. A50 (Mad.). The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that in the said case time limits are mandatory and not mere directory. The said decision followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Impexnet Logistic Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del.) . 6. In view of above, we find that in the instant case the time limit prescribed by CBLR have not been followed in so much as the offence report was recorded on 03.05.2016 and the licence was suspended on 20.05.2016 wherein further order of suspension was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
