9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case on hand; they have termed the same as minimal, meagre, to quote. This is not permissible in the current set. There is no fault with the original authority s decision in choosing one over the other, since, such a power is vested only with the original authority per Regulation 20(7). It is the settled position of law that the views of higher authorities are just a change of opinion which cannot influence/substitute the decision of another authority. The present appeal is frivolous, misconceived and above all, wastage of time and money - Appeal of Revenue dismissed. - Customs Appeal No. C/42272 of 2018 And C/CROSS/42079/2018 - FINAL ORDER No. 40670/2019 - Dated:- 15-4-2019 - MR MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, TECHNICAL MEMBER And MR P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but declining to revoke the CB license, but however, ordering forfeiture of ₹ 50,000/- from the security deposit. Based on the order of the Review Committee of Chief Commissioners dated 04.09.2018, Revenue has questioned the above Order-in-Original. 3. Heard Ld. DR, Ms. T. Usha Devi, DC, for the Revenue and Ld. Advocate, Shri B.R. Tripathi for the respondent. 4. Ld. Advocate submitted at the threshold that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable as the same is hit by the National Litigation Policy since the amount involved is ₹ 50,000/- only. 5. Ld. DR, submitted that it was a clear case where an offence case was made out against the CB and she further drew our attention to the factual findings with regard to cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority has imposed the maximum and the Regulation do not permit anything beyond this, there is no question of any lenient view and therefore the penalty can never be said to be meagre. The authorities cannot go beyond the mandate of the provision and therefore, the Review Committee requiring intervention of this forum to the above is definitely beyond the scope of the very Regulation and definitely ultra vires. 7.3 The Commissioner- Original authority has exercised his option as provided in terms of Regulation 20 of the CBLR whereby, he is authorized to either revoke or impose penalty to the extent provided under Regulation 22 of the CBLR. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: 20. Procedure for revoking licence or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot insist for adopting their views since that is undisputedly the domain of the Commissioner in stricto sensu. When the legislation in its wisdom has clearly pegged the upper limit of penalty at ₹ 50,000/-, the review authorities who are subordinate thereto can never question that limit, which is precisely done in the case on hand; they have termed the same as minimal, meagre, to quote. This is not permissible in the current set. It is not as though the word OR in between is invisible. We therefore do not find any fault with the original authority s decision in choosing one over the other, since, such a power is vested only with the original authority per Regulation 20(7). It is the settled position of law that the views of hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
