2016 (11) TMI 908 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - CHA out of job due to delay on the part of Revenue - Held that - It is a settled legal position in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and in various other judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court that order of the higher appellate authorities is binding on the subordinate authority, which under any circumstances cannot be defied - the case relates to the revocation of the CHA License and due to delay CHA is out of the job due to delay on the part of the Revenue. We, therefore, direct the adjudicating authority to restore the CHA License subject to the de novo adjudication order. The CHA License shall remain restore till the original adjudicating authority passes the de novo adjudication order. The miscellaneous application is allowed in the above terms.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure of adjudicating authority to complete de novo adjudication within the stipulated time frame.
2. Defiance of direction by the adjudicating authority.
3. Legal position regarding binding nature of orders from higher appellate authorities.
4. Impact of delay on CHA's job due to revocation of license.

The judgment addresses the issue of the adjudicating authority's failure to complete de novo adjudication within the specified time frame. The tribunal had directed the authority to pass a fresh order within three months, but even after eight months, no action was taken. The tribunal noted the casual and careless attitude of the authority, emphasizing that orders from higher appellate authorities are binding and cannot be defied. Citing legal precedents, including Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., the tribunal highlighted the importance of compliance with directives. Due to the delay, the CHA was out of a job, leading the tribunal to direct the restoration of the CHA License until the de novo adjudication order is passed.

The judgment delves into the defiance of direction by the adjudicating authority. Despite being explicitly directed to complete de novo adjudication within three months, the authority neither complied nor communicated any genuine difficulty in meeting the deadline. The tribunal emphasized that such defiance is unacceptable, as orders from higher appellate authorities are legally binding on subordinate authorities. The tribunal's decision to restore the CHA License was influenced by the authority's failure to adhere to the directive, impacting the CHA's employment status.

The judgment discusses the legal position regarding the binding nature of orders from higher appellate authorities. It refers to established legal principles, such as those outlined in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. and other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing that subordinate authorities must adhere to directives from higher authorities. The tribunal's decision to restore the CHA License was based on the understanding that orders from higher appellate authorities carry legal weight and must be followed without defiance.

The judgment highlights the impact of the delay on the CHA's job due to the revocation of the license. The tribunal recognized that the CHA was out of a job because of the delay caused by the adjudicating authority's inaction. This acknowledgment led the tribunal to direct the restoration of the CHA License until the completion of the de novo adjudication order, ensuring that the CHA's employment status is not adversely affected by the delay in the adjudication process.