9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1117 - AT - CustomsSeeking revocation of suspension of the C.B. license - Held that - The suspension and the confirmation have been done in accordance with Regulation 19 of CBLR and within the timeline prescribed therein. We also agree that there is no evidence that the SCN issued by DRI on 28.09.2015 has been received by Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore who is the competent authority to issue notice under Regulation 20(1) ibid. Thus, the contention of the Ld. DR that there is no violation of time-line prescribed under CBLR has force. That having been said, it is pertinent to note that when DRI sent the initial report which led to suspension and of the license confirmation of suspension, it is expected that copy of the SCN should/would have been sent to Commissioner of Central Excise, and Customs Indore for necessary action, if so deemed fit, for revocation of license under Regulation 20 of CBLR. If the DRI SCN has actually been received by Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, then non-issuance of the SCN as per Regulation 20(1) so far clearly violates said sub regulation inasmuch as such SCN is required to be issued within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report and in such a scenario continuation of suspension would become untenable. However, even if, it is presumed that DRI SCN has not been received by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore, we need to take note of the fact that more than 14 months have elapsed since suspension of the appelant s CB license and more than 8 months has elapsed since issuance of the SCN by DRI and still no action for revocation of license under Regulation 20 has been initiated. It is trite to say that suspension cannot be a substitution for revocation and we cannot countenance a situation where suspension is continued for inordinately long time affecting the appellant s means of livelihood without any steps taken to issue SCN for revocation of license under Regulation 20 ibid.
Issues:
Revocation of suspension of C.B. license based on DRI investigation and SCN issued under Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appellant sought revocation of the suspension of their C.B. license, which was initially suspended on 6.4.2015 and confirmed on 5.5.2015. The suspension was based on a report from DRI indicating a violation of the Customs Act, with the role of the CHA also being questioned. The appellant argued that since DRI had completed its investigation and issued a show cause notice (SCN) on 28.09.2015, no further action had been taken under Regulation 20 of CBLR for license revocation, and thus, the suspension should be lifted. CESTAT judgments in similar cases were cited to support this argument. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that the suspension and subsequent confirmation were in accordance with CBLR, specifically Regulation 19, and that there was no evidence of the concerned Commissioner receiving the DRI SCN, which is necessary for initiating revocation under Regulation 20. The Tribunal deliberated on both arguments and found that the suspension and confirmation were indeed compliant with Regulation 19. However, it was noted that there was no evidence of the DRI SCN reaching the Commissioner, who is responsible for issuing notices under Regulation 20. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely action and noted that even if the DRI SCN had not been received, an unreasonably long period had passed without any steps taken for revocation, which could not be justified. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal highlighted the need for periodic review of license suspensions based on the gravity of the offense and the time lapsed. It was noted that no direct involvement of the CHA in fraudulent activities had been proven, and the time limit for issuing a final notice for revocation had already passed without any action. In light of these considerations, the Tribunal found the continued suspension unreasonable and ordered the revocation of the appellant's C.B. license. The decision was made to ensure fairness and prevent undue hardship on the appellant's livelihood.
|
