9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r is a contention of the said Appellant that the time limit under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR 2004 was not adhered to. That time limit concerns the issuance of show cause notice "within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report”. In that case there was no occasion for the CESTAT to consider whether the violation of the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR 2004 for submitting the enquiry report would vitiate the proceedings. The first enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officers on 26.06.2012 which was not supplied to the appellant and the Ld. Commissioner of Customs arbitrarily appointed in another enquiry officers on 04.07.2012 who submitted the report as per the wishes of Ld. Commissioner of Customs on 10.08.2012. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport was submitted, therefore, the CHA Licence was suspended on 07.07.2010, thereafter, post suspension hearing was given to the appellant on 27.07.2010 by the Commissioner of Customs and after considering the submissions of the appellant, the suspension was confirmed vide order dated 13.08.2010. In the meantime, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 12.08.2010 under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004. 3. The Deputy Commissioner conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 26.06.2012 and no case has been made for suspension of CHA licence. As the Ld. Commissioner of Customs did not agree with the report, therefore, he appointed another enquiry officer on 04.07.2012. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 10.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9.11.2012 which is beyond the 90 days. He further submits that the Ld. Commissioner initiated second enquiry on 04.07.2012 which is not permissible under Regulation 22(7) of the CHALRs 2004. In fact, if the Ld. Commissioner of Customs was not agreed with the enquiry with the report, he should have to notice to the appellant and to pass the order on merits. Instead of, doing so, he appointed another enquiry officer who submitted the report on 10.08.2012, therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside in the light of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case or S.K. Logistic reported in 2016-TIOL-845-HC-Del-Cus and A.M. Ahamed co, Reported in 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.). He also relied on the 2015-TIOL-2333-CESTAT-Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as observed as under: 9. No explanation has been offered Regulation 22(5) of the CHALR. All that is stated in the memorandum of appeal is that the file could not be traced and therefore there was delay in the SCN being issued under Regulation 22 (1) of the CHALR. The issue here is not so much about in the issuing of the SNC. It is about the unexplained delay of over three years in submitting the enquiry report. For the said delay the only explanation is that the first inquiry officer retired without submitting the report. This by no means justifies the extraordinary delay of more than three years after the date of the SCN in completing the inquiry and submitting a report. In the circumstances, the view taken by the CESTAT that the conse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. Regulation 22(3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days. Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which actions is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation also concluded within a time frame, I am of the view that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner on 08.05.2010 with a copy marked to the first respondent should be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. If so report calculated, the impugned proceedings have obviously been initiated beyond the period of 90 days. and thereafter the Hon'ble High Court has held that the provisions of Regulation 22 are to be followed strict time schedule. 9. Further, the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here the inquiry report is not to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, Regulation 23 makes no provision for dismissal thereof. In fact, the wording of sub-regulation (6) is that it is mandatory for the commissioner to furnish the inquiry officer's report to the CHA, irrespective of whether the enquiry findings are against the CHA or are in his favour. The authority of the Commissioner in sub-regulations (7) comes into play only after the copy of the enquiry report is furnished to the CHA and his arguments thereupon are on record. The explanation of the succeeding Commissioner that the decision to appoint an inquiry officer is within the parameters of the powers conferred upon him in terms of sub-regulation (7) has no basis in law. Sub- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
