Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2017 (4) TMI 681

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D. Naik, JJ. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. Ashwini Kumar M. Prabhakar, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER P. C. This Appeal by the revenue challenges the order passed by the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) by a majority holding that the charges against the Customs House Agent are only partially proved. Those charges which are held to be proved are not serious enough to warrant the strict penalty of revocation of the licence. 2 The facts are simple. The Customs House Agent respondent before this Court held a licence bearing No.11/896. That came to be revoked by the Commissioner of Customs (General) on 28th February, 2013. The charges which, are held to be proved perta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it was not clear whether he was a transferee of the licence or an employee of the respondent. It is in these circumstances, that the charge of subletting of licence was held not to be proved. 6 Then, the second charge was of not having proper authorization for clearance of the goods. The Member (Judicial) held that the revenue ought to have produced the required evidence for all the documents which were in its custody. During the course of inquiry, the respondent insisted that the revenue has all the records, whereas he has none. The revenue did not cooperate and a adverse inference is drawn. As far as the third charge is concerned, it is a consequence of the second charge of violation of regulation 13(a). The regulation that was violate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ence had to be drawn against it. 9 It is in these circumstances, that charge of violation of regulation 13(a) and 13(d) was not held to be proved by the third Member. 10 Even, the charge of lack of supervision was not held to be substantiated and proved by the Member (Judicial). However, the third Member came to the conclusion that the Technical Member's finding that violation of regulation 13(a) and 13(d) is proved, cannot be agreed with, still, there is substance in his finding that there is contravention of regulation 19(8). Thus, the third Member has agreed with the Member (Judicial) on substantive findings. As far as the technical breach and violations are concerned, he has agreed with the Member (Technical). 11 To our min .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates