9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (6) TMI 602 - HC - CustomsCHA - revocation / suspension of license - early hearing - whether the CESTAT was justified in declining to hear appeal expeditiously merely because the suspension order passed at Mumbai does not preclude the assessee from carrying on its business at Goa. - held that - The fact that the assessee could carry on business at Goa cannot be a ground to deny early hearing especially when the assessee has been in fact carrying on business at Mumbai till the suspension was issued on 23-12-2009. As the assessee has been deprived of his right to carry on his business at Mumbai since 23-12-2009, it was just and proper for the Tribunal to allow the application for early hearing of the Appeal.
Issues:
- Justification of the Tribunal in rejecting the application for early hearing of the appeal. Analysis: The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to the issue of whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appellant/assessee's application for early hearing of the appeal. The appellant, a Customs House Agent in Mumbai, had his CHA license suspended by the Commissioner of Customs, leading to a pending appeal before the CESTAT. The appellant sought early hearing of the appeal, which was denied by the CESTAT primarily because the suspension order did not prevent the appellant from operating in Goa, where the license was issued. However, the High Court found that the appellant had been conducting business in Mumbai with necessary permissions, and the ability to operate in Goa should not hinder the early hearing of the appeal, especially considering the appellant's deprivation of conducting business in Mumbai since the suspension order. The Court held that the Tribunal should have allowed the application for early hearing, considering the appellant's situation. The Court emphasized that the appellant had been carrying on CHA business in Mumbai for several years, even though the license was issued in Goa. The Court noted that the appellant's right to conduct business in Mumbai had been curtailed since the suspension order in December 2009. Therefore, the Court found it appropriate to quash the order of the CESTAT dated February 18, 2011, and directed the CESTAT to expeditiously dispose of the appeal on its merits, preferably within four months from the date of the judgment. The Court disposed of the appeal with no orders as to costs, thereby providing relief to the appellant and ensuring a timely resolution of the pending appeal before the CESTAT.
|
