9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the stay application filed by the appellants should be heard within 4 weeks from the date of order. This order was mentioned before us on 19.06.2013 and accordingly the stay application was fixed for hearing today. 2. The appellant had also filed an application for early hearing of stay application. Since as per the High Court's direction we have taken up the hearing of the stay application, early hearing application for stay becomes infructuous and accordingly is dismissed. 3. The issue in brief is that SCSL are alleged to have misutilized the license, indulged in clearance of overvalued exports, and being involved in serious malpractices by their branch manager in collusion with one Shri Selvanathan at their Coimbatore Branch Office. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of SCSL, Coimbatore. Thus, it is a fact admitted by SCSL that their Branch Manager and other staff knowingly indulged in serious malpractices. 3.3. The show-cause notice brings out that there were violations of Regulations 13(a), 13(d), 13(e) and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004. The Inquiry Officer in her report established these violations. 4. Proceedings initiated have culminated in the impugned order under challenge. 5. After considering the operative portion of the order we find that the licence of the appellant has been suspended for a period of 6 months from 1st June onwards from operating in all places other than Karnataka. We find that in this case the appellant has already undergone suspension of licence for 24 days and further when the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er these circumstances, the penalty of 6 months suspension imposed on the appellant is very harsh and in any case the appellant has already suffered 24 days of suspension in respect of operations outside Karnataka and therefore the order may be set aside and the licence may be allowed to be operated outside Karnataka. 7. The learned AR on the other hand would submit that Commissioner has taken a very lenient view against the appellants. In fact the show-cause notice was issued for revocation. He submits that punishment is not for the management but for the CHA firm and therefore if the management is not involved also, punishment has to be upheld. He also submits that appellants have not shown any evidence as to whether they are exercising ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsion only outside Karnataka is mainly because in his opinion, appellants did not exercise proper control over their branches. In paragraph 30.04 the Commissioner has observed that in all probability the CHA have failed to put in place appropriate monitoring systems and control mechanisms in respect of their Branch Offices. For coming to this conclusion, we are unable to find what is the basis in the order. There is no indication that appellants were put to notice to answer this issue. The appellants defence has been that the very fact that there are no offences after 2005 against the firm would show that they have been exercising proper control. The Commissioner is going on the basis of probability for coming to the conclusion that there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
