9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order dated 05.04.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a Custom House Agent (CHA) and was granted the CHA licence under Regulation 10(1) of the CHALR, 1984 (now Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004). The Department received information from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, the Enquiry Officer and vide letter dated 8.3.2011 he has submitted the report stating that the articles of charges framed against the respondent are not maintainable, hence not proved. Show cause notice dated 28.4.2009 issued by the Department was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 5.4.2011, wherein the learned adjudicating authority has forfeited the entire amount of security deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs conferred under Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR, 2004 is not appealable before the Tribunal in terms of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as the said order has not been passed by him in the capacity of an adjudicating authority. He further submitted that the CHALR, 1984 only permits the aggrieved licensee for preferring appeal before the Tribunal. Thus, he submitted that Revenue's ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Appellate Tribunal against a decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority. The present impugned order was passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs in his administrative capacity and not in context with matter relating to levy of tax. Since such order was passed under the CHALR, 1984, the author of such order cannot be termed as an adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
