9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stice has not been followed. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner and direct him to decide the case afresh after allowing cross-examination of the persons as requested by the appellant and after supplying copy of the relied upon documents if not supplied so far - Appeal disposed of. - Customs Appeal No. 76219/2014 - ORDER NO. A/75266/2015 - Dated:- 29-5-2015 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Judicial Member And Dr. I.P. Lal, Technical Member For the Petitioner : Sri R.K. Chowdhury,Advocate Sri B.N. Pal, Advocate For the Respondent : Sri S.K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R.) ORDER Per DR. I.P. LAL The instant appeal is filed against as the order-in-original dated 19/12/2013 passed by the Commr. of Customs (Airport and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that he is not involved in any business of import or export, that he has no knowledge about the consignments imported at Kolkata port in his name and IEC..that he has no knowledge regarding the authorization letter issued to M/s. P.K. Ghosh and Sons, CHA and the letter acted for General Electronics. He has not signed the letter.Both Shri Prakash Jha and Shri Amar Ch. Roy made similar averments. They stated that they received the job through some persons and that they were not aware about the declared importer Shri Nityananda Dey.They further stated that the actual importer of the consignment was done through Binod Lachwani with whom they discussed time and again in connection with the above consignment. Shri Roy stated that after clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Provisions of Regulation 20 (1) of CHALR, 2004. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Commissioner which culminated into passing the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the appeal is filed to this Forum. 2.5 M/s. Guha Sarkar Co. filed writ petition No. 41 of 2014 before the Hon ble High Court of Kolkata challenging the findings of the Ld. Commissioner vide his order dated 19th December, 2013. The Hon ble High Court observed as under: I concede that there is flaw in that part of the order (paragraph 25 of the order) of the Ld. Commissioner by disallowing the cross examination. It was further observed by the Hon ble Court that petitioners was at liberty to prefer an appeal from the impugned order dated 19th December ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided the documents sought nor did he allow the cross examination of the persons named by the appellant. It is the contention that the Ld. Commissioner has passed the order beyond the period stipulated in the regulation in as much as the purported offence report has been received by the Department on 23/7/2012 and the order for revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of CHA license was passed on 19/5/2013 which is beyond 09 months. It is the submission that limitation prescribed under the said regulation is mandatory in nature and there is no scope for passing any order beyond the prescribed time limit. 4. As per contra, the Ld. A.R. for Revenue reiterated the findings of the Ld. Commissioner. He submitted that the letter of authoriza ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
