TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. The Adjudicating Authority finds that the revocation of license is not warranted in the present case. However, it is not explained as to how the learned Adjudicating Authority has come to such a conclusion though holding that the appellants have rendered themselves liable to pay maximum penalty as applicable under Rule 18 of CBLR, 2018. Understandably, the evidence made available to the Adjudicating Authority in the instant case is not of a kind to be a proof beyond doubt; set of evidence available before the Adjudicating Authority was a report by the CBI, which itself at best, offers scope for conducting further enquiries in this regard. Other than, the report of the CBI and the statement said to have been given by the employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warding Agencies Private Limited; Shri Muragan stated that as per the directions of Smt. Sanghamitra, he noted down details of money received from19 CHAs, totalling amounting to Rs.69,700/-; the list included the name of the appellant at Sl. No.14 for an amount of Rs.3,600/-; investigations revealed that the appellant s company at Chennai issued a cash voucher, No. 065 for job No. 929 for Rs.5140/- on 04.09.2019, in the name of Shri K.Guhan; Shri Guhan in his statement before Metropolitan Magistrate on 21.01.2020confirmed that he paid gratification to the officers through Shri Muragan; Custom officers granted LEO after confirming from Shri Muragan about the receipt of bribe and that he received Rs.5,200/- in cash from his office for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Inquiry Officer was in gross violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents relied upon were not supplied to the appellant and opportunity of cross-examination of the officers and other persons involved in violation of the ratio laid down in: Kuldeep Singh vs Commissioner of Police and Ors. C.A. Nos.6539-6361/1998 (arising out of SLP (C) No.1414-16 of 1998 decided on 17.12.1998) [MANU/SC/0793/1198] Andaman Tiber Industries Vs CCE, Kolkatta-II Civil Appeal No.4228/2006 decided on 02.09.2015 [MANU/SC/1250/2015] Arya AbhushanBhandar Vs UOI- [MANU/SC/0552/2002]. 4. Shri P. Amresh,learned Authorized Representative for the Department reiterates the findings of the OIO. 5. Heard bot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Adjudicating Authority also finds the Custom broker to be guilty of violation of provisions of Rule 10(i) of CBLR, 2018. 6. I find that learned Adjudicating Authority concludes with all the force of argument that the Custom broker (the appellant) has violated the provisions of Rule 10(i) and Rule 13 (12) of CBLR, 2018. However, the Adjudicating Authority does not deem it fit to revoke the license of the appellant. The Adjudicating Authority finds that the revocation of license is not warranted in the present case. However, it is not explained as to how the learned Adjudicating Authority has come to such a conclusion though holding that the appellants have rendered themselves liable to pay maximum penalty as applicable under Rule 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
