9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 28 - HC - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - Bar of limitation - Held that - CESTAT allowed the appeal by following the decision rendered in the writ petition on the ground that the action was time barred. CESTAT being a quasi-judicial authority, over which this Court has supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, is bound by the order passed by this Court. The order impugned in the appeal shows that the CESTAT took note of the fact that there was no stay of the order precedent writ. The said order, though on appeal, is not under stay. Therefore, in all fairness, the appellant should actually treat the order of revocation of licence to be under cloud as on date, in view of the order passed in the writ petition. In such circumstances, we do not see any merits in the appeal. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to suspension and revocation of license under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The Commissioner of Customs filed an appeal challenging the suspension and subsequent revocation of the license of a Customs House Agent. The license was suspended on 12-9-2012, followed by a show cause notice for revocation issued on 6-12-2012. A writ petition was filed challenging the show cause notice, which was allowed solely on the ground of limitation on 4-1-2013. The respondent then appealed the suspension order to CESTAT, which was allowed on 20-2-2013. The Commissioner of Customs appealed this decision, arguing that the earlier judgment had not attained finality as it was under appeal. However, the Court held that the CESTAT was bound by the decision of the writ petition as it was not stayed, and the revocation order was considered to be under a cloud due to the writ petition outcome. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, with the final outcome subject to the result of the writ appeal. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal challenging the suspension and revocation of the license, emphasizing that the decision of the writ petition had a binding effect on CESTAT. The revocation order was deemed to be under a cloud due to the writ petition outcome, and the appeal lacked merit in light of these circumstances. The final outcome of the case would be contingent upon the result of the writ appeal, with no costs imposed. Additionally, the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.
|
