9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port which led to suspension and of the license confirmation of suspension, it is expected that copy of the SCN should/would have been sent to Commissioner of Central Excise, and Customs Indore for necessary action, if so deemed fit, for revocation of license under Regulation 20 of CBLR. If the DRI SCN has actually been received by Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore, then non-issuance of the SCN as per Regulation 20(1) so far clearly violates said sub regulation inasmuch as such SCN is required to be issued within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report and in such a scenario continuation of suspension would become untenable. However, even if, it is presumed that DRI SCN has not been received by Commissioner of Central Excise a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has completed the investigation and issued a SCN on 28.09.2015, and still no further action in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR has been taken for revocation of license, suspension should not be allowed to continue. The Ld. Advocated cited CESTAT judgments in the case of Vinod Kumar vs CC New Dlehi 2011 (272) ELT 564 (Tri. Del) and R. S. Yadav Co. vs CC N. Delhi 2012 (284) ELT 361 (Tri. Del.). 3. Ld. DR on the other hand states that suspension is ordered in accordance with CBLR in this case inasmuch as revocation was done in terms of Regulation 19 ibid within the timeline prescribed there under and there is no evidence that the concerned Commissioner who is to take action for revocation of license under Regulation 20 ever received the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... more than 14 months have elapsed since suspension of the appelant s CB license and more than 8 months has elapsed since issuance of the SCN by DRI and still no action for revocation of license under Regulation 20 has been initiated. It is trite to say that suspension cannot be a substitution for revocation and we cannot countenance a situation where suspension is continued for inordinately long time affecting the appellant s means of livelihood without any steps taken to issue SCN for revocation of license under Regulation 20 ibid. In the case of Vinod Tomar vs CC New Delhi 2011 (272) ELT 564 (Tri. Del) , it was held as under 4. The guideline given by C.B.E.C. in such matters vide Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010 lays down a norm th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ills in those cases. If any evidence has been unearthed during further investigation conducted that has not been placed before the Tribunal. Further considering the time that has passed, the time limit indicated in Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8th April, 2010 for issue of final notice for revocation of license is already over. Such notice has not been issued so far. In such a circumstances, we are of the view that it is proper to revoke the impugned order suspending the license of the appellant. 8. We clarify that this is without prejudice to the right of Revenue to issue a notice to the appellants disclosing all the evidence that they may have collected showing direct involvement and culpability of the appellant in claiming fraudul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
