9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (TECHNICAL) Shri J.V. Niranjan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri M. Jagan Babu, AC (A.R) for the Respondent ORDER PER BENCH After hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute that comes up for resolution concerns the legality of the revocation of Customs Broker s Licence of the appellant. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri J.V. Niranjan Babu submits that the revocation cannot be sustained since the time limits which have been mandated in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013 have been followed in the breach. He submits that whereas the SCN was issued on 06.06.2017 and the inquiry officer report was submitted only on 29.11.2017 more than 90 days after iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued to the petitioner on 08.05.2010 with a copy marked to the first Respondent should be taken as the date of receipt of the offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. If so calculated, the impugned proceedings have obviously been initiated beyond the period of 90 days. 23. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court In Sambhaji vs. Gangabai (2009 (240) E.L.T.161 (S.C.), it is contended by Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, that a procedural law should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory. But the said contention is wholly unsustainable, for the simple reason that a period of limitation prescribed by a Rule of procedure, cannot be diluted. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... least before me. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is of no assistance to the respondents. Hence the first contention is to be upheld. 5.2 We also note that the Hon ble High Court of Madras which is the jurisdictional High Court for this forum, in a very recent decision dt. 22.11.2018 in the case of Carewell Shipping Pvt. Ltd. in W.P.Nos.26923 and 26934 of 2018 held as under : 10. Perusal of the above said decisions of this Court and the Delhi High Court would show that the time stipulated under the Regulations for issuing the show cause notice as well as the filing report is not directory and on the other hand, it is mandatory. No other contra decisions are placed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As this Court has already found that the very filing of the report was beyond the period of 90 days as required under Regulation 20(5) and thus taken the view that the Commissioner of Customs is not entitled to proceed further under Regulations 20(6) and 20(7) as stated supra, the impugned show cause notice cannot have legs to stand any more, as naturally it has to fall on its own, in view of the lapse committed by the Officers as stated supra, as the inquiry report, pursuant to the issuance of the show cause notice, was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 12. It is claimed by the Revenue that the petitioner is an habitual offender and therefore, the proceedings are rightly initiated against them. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
