2016 (2) TMI 181 - AT - Customs

Cancellation of CHA licence - period of limitation - The learned Counsel of the appellants raised the ground of limitation for the first time during the arguments at hearing stage. - Held that - It is seen that the question of limitation has neither been raised during original proceeding before adjudicating authority nor has it been incorporated as a ground of appeal in the appeal memo nor has it been sought to be included by miscellaneous application for inclusion of fresh grounds. In these circumstances and the case law cited above, while cannot ignore the submissions on limitation, we cannot also given findings without giving Revenue an adequate opportunity to given findings on the same. We are left with no option but to set aside the order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to give findings on the issue of limitation. - Matter remanded back.

Issues:
1. Whether the ground of limitation can be raised for the first time during the hearing stage of an appeal.
2. Whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to examine a question of law not raised before the lower authority or in the appeal memorandum but sought to be added later as an additional ground.
3. Whether a plea of limitation, being a legal plea, can be taken for the first time in an appeal without prior notice or filing a miscellaneous application for inclusion of additional grounds.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, licensed under Customs House Agent Licencing Regulations, had their license cancelled in relation to a consignment imported by another party. The appellants challenged this cancellation before the Tribunal, raising various grounds but not including the ground of limitation in their appeal memo. The learned Counsel for the appellants introduced the ground of limitation for the first time during the hearing stage of the appeal.

2. The Counsel cited legal precedents to support the assertion that limitation, being a question of law, can be permitted to be raised for the first time during the hearing stage. Reference was made to decisions where parties were allowed to raise jurisdictional objections or questions of law for the first time during appeal proceedings, emphasizing that objections related to jurisdiction go to the root of the case.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties. While acknowledging the importance of the submissions on limitation, the Tribunal noted that the question of limitation was not raised during the original proceedings before the adjudicating authority, nor was it included as a ground of appeal or sought to be added through a miscellaneous application. Due to these circumstances and the case law cited, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to provide findings on the issue of limitation.

4. The Tribunal directed the appellants to approach the adjudicating authority within three weeks with their submissions on limitation. The Commissioner was instructed to decide the matter within three months after providing a fair opportunity to the appellants to present their case. This decision was pronounced in court on a specific date.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration regarding the ground of limitation raised during the appeal proceedings.

← Previous Next →