9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 417X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General), New Custom House, New Delhi in exercise of powers under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereinafter 'CBLR, 2013'). By the impugned order, the permission granted under Regulation 9(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereafter 'CHALR, 2004') was revoked and the petitioner was prohibited to continue working as Custom Broker at Delhi Customs Stations. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that an appeal would lie before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter 'CESTAT') against the impugned order by virtue of Regulation 21 of CBLR 2013. This is disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y on business as an agent relating to the entry or departure of a conveyance or the import or export of goods at any customs station unless such person holds a licence granted in this behalf in accordance with the regulations. (2) The Board may make regulations for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this section and, in particular, such regulation may provide for- (a) the authority by which a licence may be granted under this section and the period of validity of any such licence; (b) the form of the licence and the fee payable therefor; (c) the qualifications of persons who may apply for a licence and the qualifications of persons to be employed by a licensee to assist him in his work as an agent; (d) the restrictions and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est serve the objects and purposes of the Act; nor is it open to the court to sit in judgment over the wisdom, the effectiveness or otherwise of the policy, so as to declare a regulation ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the court, the impugned provision will not help to carry through the object and purposes of the Act. This Court reiterated the legal position, well established by a long series of decisions in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27] "So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g such provisions, this Court in a number of decisions has held that where power is conferred to make subordinate legislation in general terms, the subsequent particularisation of the matters/topics has to be construed as merely illustrative and not limiting the scope of the general power. Consequently, even if the specific enumerated topics in Section 23(1-A) may not empower the Central Government to make the impugned rule (Rule 44-I), making of the rule can be justified with reference to the general power conferred on the Central Government under Section 23(1), provided the rule does not travel beyond the scope of the Act." 7. Applying the aforesaid principle, the Board's power to make regulations would not be limited to the specific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
