9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts leading to the filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under - Shri Ashwani Sareen is now the proprietor of the appellants firm M/s. Nipun Impex (in short NIP ). He was earlier one of the three partners of firm, M/s. All Rich International Cargo Services (in short, ARC). The two other partners in that firm were S/Sh. Kartik Naidu and Shri Santosh Reddy. They had entered into partnership by executing partnership deed dated 15-7-1995. The Customs Authorities granted temporary licence to their firm, M/s. ARI, with the condition that Shri Ashwani Sareen, Proprietor of the appellants firm, shall alone transact the Customs House work on behalf of the firm. Later on, Shri Ashwani Sareen qualified the examination under Regula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue and was not guilty of any misconduct. The Commissioner, however, after receipt of the report passed the impugned order revoking the licence in the name of the appellants firm, M/s. NIP, and ordered for the forfeiture of the security furnished by them. 4. The learned Counsel has contended that any dispute between the partners of the erstwhile firm, M/s. ARC, about its dissolution could not be adjudicated upon by the Customs Authorities. The aggrieved partners could only pursue their remedy in accordance with the terms of the partnership deed i.e. by making reference to the arbitrator as per the clause in the deed or knock the door of the Civil Court for the redressal of the grievance, if any, against Shri Ashwani Sareen, Part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplication and issued him the licence on 23-3-1998. No misconduct in carrying out the Customs House work had been attributed to him. 7. The sole ground on which the Commissioner has passed the impugned order as is evident from the record is that Shri Ashwani Sareen misinformed the Department about the dissolution of his partnership firm known as M/s. ARC as his two other partners in that firm, namely, Shri Kartik Naidu and Shri Santosh Reddy, had disputed the receipt of the notices of dissolution and their retirement from the firm. But the record shows that after issuing show cause notice to the appellants, an inquiry officer was appointed to look into this ground. The inquiry officer did not believe the version of other two partners that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised dispute about the dissolution of the firm, M/s. ARC. For this dispute, the aggrieved partners could only approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. The licence was issued to Shri Ashwani Sareen when he fulfilled the conditions of Regulation 7 of CHA Licence Regulations, 1984. Even the Commissioner in the impugned order had observed that he had not acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. His view that since he was guilty of mis-informing the Department about the dissolution of the earlier firm, M/s. ARC, that was enough to cast serious aspersions on his reliability and tantamount to gross violation of CHALR, 1994, cannot be legally subscribed. The licence could be revoked by the Commissioner only if he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
