9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1570 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - time limitation - enquiry was to be completed by 30.11.2015 the day when 90 daysperiod was over after issue of the SCN which is dated 31.8.2015. However in the present case enquiry was completed on 17.2.2016 - Held that - there has been a delay of more than two months in preparation and submission of the report which is the contravention of the Regulation 20(5) of CBLR 2013 - following the Honble Delhi High Courts decisions in the cases of Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC 2016 (5) TMI 775 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Challenge to revocation of CHA license based on non-compliance with time lines under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. Analysis: The appellant, M/s B.N. Gandhi, appealed against the revocation of their CHA license by the Commissioner (Appeals) in a case dated 17.5.2016. The appellant's main contention was that the department failed to adhere to the time lines specified in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued to the appellant on 31.8.2015 under Rule 20 of CBLR, 2012. Regulation 20(5) mandates that the enquiry concerning the license must be completed within 90 days from the date of issuing the notice. In this instance, the enquiry was finalized on 17.2.2016, which was beyond the stipulated 90-day period from the issuance of the SCN on 31.8.2015. This delay of over two months in preparing and submitting the report constituted a violation of Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013. Citing precedents from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court cases of Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC 2016 (337) ELT 41 (Del.), HLPL Global Logistics P. Ltd. Vs. CC 2016 (338) ELT 365 (Del.), and Impexnet Logistic Vs. CC 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del.), the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief. The judgments in these cases seemingly supported the appellant's argument regarding the importance of complying with the prescribed time lines under the relevant regulations. The decision was pronounced in court on 5.12.2016 by Ashok K. Arya, the Technical Member of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi. This judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to time frames in regulatory matters, particularly concerning the revocation of licenses. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal based on the violation of Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013, indicates a strict approach towards ensuring timely and fair administrative procedures in such cases. The reliance on relevant legal precedents further strengthens the appellant's position and highlights the importance of consistency in interpreting and applying regulatory provisions across similar cases.
|
