2015 (10) TMI 2327 - AT - Customs

Failure to comply with direction of Tribunal No SCN issued under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 No offence reported to DRI thus license should not have been revoked Appellant contends that once mandatory condition is not fulfilled, authority shall have no jurisdiction over the matter - Held That - Tribunal shall not give further direction which is beyond jurisdiction since there is no date of offence report coming out from record to revive proceeding - Appeal is allowed to the limited extent against revocation of license Decision made in case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. A.M. Ahmed & Co . and Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Jamnagar 2015 (5) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT followed. Proceeding pending before Tribunal shall have its independent effect Court does not agree that present matter is out of its jurisdiction Decided partially in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues: Failure to comply with tribunal's direction, revocation of CHA license, jurisdiction over the matter, Settlement Commission's order

Failure to comply with tribunal's direction:
The judgment addresses the issue of non-compliance with the Tribunal's direction, where the licensing authority failed to issue a notice under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 within the stipulated 90 days after an offence report by DRI. The learned counsel argued that this failure rendered the authority without jurisdiction over the matter, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal observed that no show-cause notice under Regulation 22 was issued, and the Revenue had no response to this discrepancy. As there was no date of the offence report available to revive the proceedings, the appeal was allowed against the license revocation based on the failure to comply with the regulation and the cited judgments.

Revocation of CHA license:
The judgment delves into the revocation of the CHA license due to the failure to follow the Tribunal's direction and the non-issuance of a show-cause notice under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 within the prescribed time frame. The learned counsel emphasized that the lack of compliance with this regulation deprived the authority of jurisdiction over the matter. The Tribunal noted the absence of a show-cause notice in the records and acknowledged the importance of following the course of natural justice. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to a limited extent against the license revocation.

Jurisdiction over the matter:
The judgment scrutinizes the issue of jurisdiction over the matter concerning the revocation of the CHA license. It highlights the requirement to issue a notice under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 within 90 days of an offence report by DRI for the licensing authority to maintain jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of following the course of natural justice and the implications of non-compliance with the regulation. By referencing the judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal allowed the appeal partially due to the failure to adhere to the regulatory provisions.

Settlement Commission's order:
The judgment also addresses the settlement of the matter by the Settlement Commission and its impact on the proceedings pending before the Tribunal. The Settlement Commission's order clarified that the proceedings before the Tribunal would have an independent effect, rejecting the argument that the matter was outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Tribunal disagreed with the counsel's submission regarding the Settlement Commission's order, affirming its jurisdiction over the ongoing proceedings despite the settlement.