9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Commissioner justifying direction of prohibition dispensing with the personal hearing to the appellant. The matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide the issues afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand. - APPEAL No. C/88871/2018 - A/87542/2018 - Dated:- 5-10-2018 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Jhamman Singh, Advocate, for appellant Ms. Vinita Sekhar, Deputy, Commissioner (AR), for respondent ORDER Per: Dr. D.M. Misra This is an appeal filed against order-in-original No. 34/2018-19 dated 12.9.2018 passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I. 2. Brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ither their employee nor he was authorized in any manner to represent them. He has further submitted that the learned Commissioner erroneously directed prohibiting the appellant to operate in all the three zones without any basis. Hence the order is liable to be set aside. In support, the learned Advocate has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Pioneer (Customs Broker) vs. CC(G), Nhava Sheva-I Order No. A/87044/2018 dated 6.8.2018 and Eastern Clearing Forwarding Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai Order No. A/86472/2018 dated 23.5.2018. 4. Per contra, learned AR for the Revenue has submitted that there is no necessity to afford opportunity of personal hearing before directing prohibition to operate as Customs Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts, no opportunity was accorded to them to explain their position. Precisely, their plea is that since prohibition to operate as broker adversely affected their interest of employment, and since they were neither put to notice nor afforded any opportunity of personal hearing, the Order is issued in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Revenue s contention, on the other hand, is that there is no stipulation in the CBLR, 2013 to allow an opportunity of hearing before an order of prohibition is passed. They have relied upon the judgment of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in S.R. Sale Co. (supra). 7. We find that the Hon ble Bombay High Court in laying down the principles, observed as follows:- 3. Regulation 21 does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity of a hearing can be afforded in compliance with the principle of natural justice. Where immediate action is necessary, a predecisional hearing can be dispensed with if such a hearing will defeat the requirement of public interest in the orderly and proper functioning of the Customs Station. On the other hand, where immediate action is not required, a prohibitory order can await compliance with the requirements of natural justice. Ordinarily, a predecisional hearing must be the rule. Dispensation is to be an exception. 8. On a careful reading of the laid down principle, we find that observing principles of natural justice is the rule, and dispensing it, is the exception to the said rule. Needless to mention the exception could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
