9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 889X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sri S.K. Naskar, A.C. (A.R.) For The Respondent(s) ORDER Grievance of the appellant is that although the appellant has been suspended from 10th February, 2009 as well as the offence report was issued received on 28/01/2009. Commissioner of Customs proceeded to issue with the show cause notice on 30/5/2013. This is contrary to the basic provision of law contained in Regulation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 i.e. after Twenty months under rule 22 (7) of the CHALR, 2004. This is also contrary to law. 2.2 The time limit prescribed by law is mandatory and the appellant is not permitted to suffer in view of the decisions of the of the Tribunal A few of such decisions are as under: (i) 2016-TIOL-157-CESTAT-DEL M/s. Althaarva Global Logistics Vs. Commr. of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing of order by the Commissioner Within 90 days from the date of submission of the Inquiry Report. TOTAL DURATION 270 DAYS OR 9 MONTHS 4. It may be appreciated that the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Saro International Freight Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2015-TIOL-2916-HC-MAD-CUS has held as under: '28. ..... ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Regulation 18 by following the procedure in Regulation 20 (1), the use of the term "shall" cannot be termed as "directory". Under such circumstances, the rule can only be termed as "Mandatory". 5. In view of the fragrant violation of the provision of the law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. We order accordingly. 6. In the result the appeal is allowed and M.A. is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
