9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not been held within the frame of time limit (total 270 days) as prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 - CHA licence restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 50355 of 2016 - Final Order No. 52466/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Pragyan Sharma and Sumit Wadhwa, Advocates for the appellant Shri K. Poddar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran :- The appellant is a licenced Customs House Agent engaged in clearance of cargo through customs. The appeal is against order dated 01/3/2016 of Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi revoking the lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the details of offence [hence to be construed as offence report ], the show cause notice under CHALR 2004 was issued on 18/1/2013. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who submitted his report on 02/12/2015, thereafter the present impugned order was passed on 01/3/2016. As can be seen that the show cause notice issued on 14/1/2013 was decided only on 01/3/2016 after a gap of more than three years. The enquiry report was submitted after more than 2 years and 10 months. The learned Counsel submitted that now it is well settled legal position that the time limit prescribed under CHALR 2004 are to be strictly adhered to. Failure to do so will make the action of the authorities without jurisdiction. He relied on various decided cases of Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed under the Regulations are to be followed in exercising the powers. Reference can be made to Atharva Global Logistics vs. CC, New Delhi reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 751 (Tri. Del.), Lohia Travels Cargo vs. CC (General), New Delhi reported in 2016 (331) E.L.T. 614 (Tri. Del.), Ambika Enterprises vs. CC (I G), New Delhi reported in 2016 TIOL 1720 CESTAT DEL. and final order No. 51367-51368/2016 dated 21/04/2016 in Shiva Khurana vs. CC, New Delhi (I G). 5. Examining the legal position of mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed under the Regulation as held in various decisions cited above, we find that in the present case the proceedings have not been held within the frame of time limit (total 270 days) as prescribed under Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
