9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal memo. The proposed substantial question of law is as under : "Whether the CESTAT is right in law in setting aside forfeiture of the entire amount of security deposit on the ground of termination of services of Shri Vijay Dixit was after violation of the Regulations and hence of no consequence ?" 2. There were two cases involved, one is regarding export cargo and the other is regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver their employees I observe that Shri Vijay Dixit despite being a temporary employee of the CHA and not having been authorized by the department to sign Customs documents has actually signed the declarations on the checklists for each of the 10 Shipping Bills which is in clear violation of Regulation 19(5) of CHALR, 2004 as well as Circular No.10 dated 28.12.04 issued vide F. No.S/6-81/2000-Admn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Strangely in the earlier paragraph, COC records as under : "..................... However it is expected or the CHA to properly scrutinize the documents and advice the exporter in connection to declaration of description, value and other particulars of the goods in the Shipping Bills which are filed by the CHA and observe due diligence in carrying out their work with efficiency and without ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if a show cause notice had been issued, it would have been annexed to the Appeal Memo file. Moreover, COC has not explained as to how termination of its temporary employee Mr. Vijay Dixit would amount to lack of adherence to Regulation 19(8) of CHALR by Respondent. 6. In the circumstances, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere in the Order of Custom Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
