9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 831X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unishment was interfered with. Once we have found that the licence was not in use from 29th March, 2012 and till date, then, the tribunal's order does not require any interference. It cannot be termed as perverse or vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the record. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal - the CHA licence of the respondent would be restored. - CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2016, NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 244 OF 2016, NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2818 OF 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - S. C. Dharmadhikari And B. P. Colabawalla, JJ. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the appellant Mr. Sujay Kantawala with Mr. Brijesh Pathak and Mr. Hemant Dave for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. This appeal of the Revenue challenges the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observing that what the CHA has already undergone is an adequate or enough punishment. This is not an approach which the tribunal could adopt in the facts and circumstances of the present case. For all these reasons, he would submit that the appeal be entertained. 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. K. M. Ganatra and Co. 2016 (332) ELT 15 (SC). 6. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Kantawala that the tribunal's order does not raise any substantial question of law. The tribunal found that though the said Manish Sangani was allowed by the CHA to use the licence because Manish Sangani's licence as a CHA was suspended, the Customs also w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that the essential factual position is that the CHA licence was granted under the Regulations of 1984. Thereafter, the 2004 Regulations and later on the 2013 Regulations came into force. The information was received on 6th March, 2012 and based on which the proceedings were initiated. The statement of Mr. Manish Amlani, Director of the respondent was recorded. Thereafter, based on his admission that one Manish Sangani presented the bills of entry for examination and assessment and on the basis of the interrogation of Manish Sangani and his employee, the CHA, namely, the respondent before us was proceeded against. However, in the memo of appeal, it is alleged that it was found that Manish Sangani and his employee were operating under a di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epetitive violations were the subject matter of the penalty proceedings. It is in these circumstances that the discretion was interfered with. The discretionary order was termed as arbitrary and capricious. There, the CHA holder was a habitual offender. Unmindful of all this and its active involvement in a case of patent fraud that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India found that the tribunal should not have set aside the penalty and restored the licence. In these circumstances, the appeal of the revenue was allowed. 11. This case is not identical on facts. In the present case, though the said Manish Sangani was found to have utilised the licence, the said Manish Sangani himself was a CHA. His licence was suspended. Though the licence w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
