2018 (7) TMI 547 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - mandatory time limit as prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 not complied with - the Show Cause Notice was issued on 30/05/2016 in spite of the offence report being received by the Commissioner on 1/06/2015 from DRI - Held that - It is accepted by the Adjudicating Commissioner that the Show Cause Notice has been issued after the prescribed time limit of 90 days under the Section 20(1) of the CBLR 2013. Merely, that the appellant has filed appeal against earlier invocation of licence, could not extend statutory time limit as prescribed under the CBLR Rule, 20(1). Also at the time of the receipt of the offence report the fact that CB licence of the appellant stood revoked, it was felt that there was no need for issuing the fresh notice as held by the Commissioner in the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of Rule20(1) of the CBLR-2013 - The conclusion of the Commissioner in the impugned order that no prejudice is caused to the appellant is contrary to the provisions of the CBLR-2013. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with the time limit prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 for revocation of license.
2. Validity of the proceedings initiated against the appellant.
3. Impact of the prior revocation of the license on the issuance of Show Cause Notice.

Analysis:
1. Compliance with Time Limit:
The appellant argued that the Show Cause Notice for revocation of their license was issued beyond the prescribed 90-day period from the receipt of the offense report, as mandated by Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013. The appellant cited various case laws supporting the mandatory nature of the 90-day period. The Tribunal noted that the Notice was indeed issued after the expiration of the statutory time limit, disregarding the fact that the appellant had filed an appeal against a previous license revocation. The Tribunal held that the delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice was unjustified and not in adherence with the provisions of Rule 20(1) of CBLR 2013, ultimately leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

2. Validity of Proceedings:
The appellant contested the proceedings initiated against them, claiming that the allegations were baseless and lacked legal merit. Specifically, the appellant disputed the accusations related to import transactions involving specific entities. However, the Tribunal did not delve deeply into the merits of the case, focusing primarily on the procedural irregularities concerning the issuance of the Show Cause Notice.

3. Impact of Prior Revocation:
The respondent argued that the 90-day time limit for issuing the Show Cause Notice was not applicable due to the prior revocation of the appellant's license in another case. The Commissioner contended that since the license was already revoked before the offense report was received, there was no need to adhere to the 90-day period. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that the prior revocation did not absolve the authorities from following the prescribed time limit under Rule 20(1) of CBLR 2013. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's conclusion that no prejudice was caused to the appellant was untenable and contrary to the regulatory provisions, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order being set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment primarily focused on the procedural irregularities related to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice for license revocation, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the prescribed time limit under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of procedural compliance in such matters, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.