9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 889 - AT - CustomsTime bar - Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004 - The law prescribes that within 90 days of receipt of the offence report, the jurisdictional authority has to issue show cause notice - Held that - The time limit prescribed by law is mandatory and the appellant is not permitted to suffer in view of the decisions of the Tribunal. It may be appreciated that the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Saro International Freight Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , held that the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent is without jurisdiction, as it has been issued beyond the period prescribed in the regulations, which have statutory force and hence, not sustainable. In view of the fragrant violation of the provision of the law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Delay in issuance of show cause notice contrary to Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004. 2. Delay in submission of enquiry report and passing of revocation order contrary to rules 22(5) and 22(7) of CHALR, 2004. 3. Applicability and mandatory nature of time limits prescribed by law. 4. Comparison of time limits under CHALR, 2004 and CBLR, 2013. 5. Legal interpretation of time limits as mandatory or directory. Analysis: 1. The appellant raised a grievance regarding the delay in issuing the show cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant was suspended on 10th February, 2009, and the offence report was received on 28/01/2009. However, the show cause notice was issued on 30/5/2013, exceeding the 90-day limit prescribed by Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal emphasized that the time limit is mandatory, citing various decisions, and held that the appellant should not have suffered due to the delay beyond the prescribed period. 2. The enquiry conducted under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004 faced delays as well. The enquiring authority submitted the report after 5 years of initiating the proceedings, contrary to the 90-day limit specified in rule 22(5). Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs passed the revocation order after twenty months, violating rule 22(7). The Tribunal reiterated the mandatory nature of time limits and emphasized that the delays were against the law. 3. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the time limits prescribed by law and cited a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to support the mandatory nature of such limits. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order, due to its blatant violation of legal provisions, should be set aside, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant. 4. A comparison was drawn between the time limits under CHALR, 2004 and CBLR, 2013, emphasizing the necessity of including time limits for initiating actions and completing proceedings. The judgment underscored that when time limits are explicitly prescribed in regulations, they are to be considered mandatory, not directory, ensuring timely and efficient legal processes. 5. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal underscored the significance of complying with statutory time limits. By disposing of the matter, the Tribunal reaffirmed the mandatory nature of time limits in legal proceedings, ensuring justice and adherence to procedural requirements.
|
