9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport wherein, apparently, only statements are relied upon, which are no doubt uncorroborated. No other incriminating documentary evidence is made available on record nor has the outcome of investigation been placed on record by the Revenue to implicate or even suggest the active role of the appellant. Further, the Assistant Commissioner-Inquiry Officer has applied the Regulations and alleged violation of the same based on the statements per se - thus, the impugned order has been passed beyond the time period allowed under the Regulations and therefore, the order as well as the consequential revocation is held to be not in accordance with law, for which reason the impugned order insofar as it relates to the revocation stands set aside. The forfeiture of entire security deposit is disproportionate, also since there is no specific allegation as to the involvement of the appellant; rather, the culprits have clearly been identified as Mr. M. Vijay Anand and Mr. B. Mohan, who, admittedly, having misused the fake IECs, it is they who are actually liable for any penalty - It is deemed fit that a nominal amount of Rs.10,000/- could be forfeited out of the security deposit, but not the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ijay Anand was also recorded on 07.04.2010, wherein he appears to have inter alia admitted as under: - (i) His father did not have Rule 9 Licence; he used to get signature from one Mr. Durai Raj, a Rule 9 Licence Holder of the appellant; (ii) His father was also the proprietor of M/s. Meenakshi Agency, wherein he was the Managing Director of the company; (iii) He met one Mr. Gibri (Zipreel) of Chennai in 2007, who introduced two exporters by name Rahman and M. Kalandar Seeni Ahmed of Chennai; (iv) It was Mr. Gibri who informed him that they wanted to export leather shoe uppers to Malaysia and Dubai under drawback scheme. (v) They did not have the IE Code, for which Mr. M. Vijay Anand was asked to furnish the same on commission basis; (vi) He approached one Mr. T. Joseph John Britto (alias John), Tuticorin, who, according to him, was an agent for taking IE Codes and also provided him with 11 IE Codes; (vii) He offered a commission of Rs.5,000/- per IE Code for every consignment and utilized all those 11 IE Codes in the export of leather shoe uppers during a seven-month period; It appears that a further statement of Mr. M. Vijay Anand was also recorded on 10.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Original C.No.VIII/13/01/1984-CHAL dated 06.03.2013 having considered the plea of the appellant as well as the inquiry report filed by the Assistant Commissioner, has ordered revocation of CHA Licence of the appellant and also ordered forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.75,000/-. 6. It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed before this forum. 7. Heard Shri N. Manickam, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri S. Balakumar, learned Assistant Commissioner. 8.1 Learned Advocate would submit at the outset that the investigation report of the DRI dated 05.06.2010 is required to be considered as an offence report consequent to which the appellant s licence was suspended on 12.06.2010 and much later, i.e., on 06.03.2013, vide the impugned Order-in-Original, the licence of the appellant-CHA was revoked, which itself shows that there has been serious violation of the time-limit prescribed under Regulation 22(7) ibid. 8.2 He also drew our attention to the Board s instructions vide Circular No. 09/2010-Cus. dated 08.04.2010 wherein adhering to the time-limit prescribed for completion of proceedings after the receipt of offence report has been reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribe guidelines for authorities in the form of time-limit at various stages, which are also to be adhered to strictly by the officers, which are again mandatory in nature. It is also the settled position of law that courts have clearly held that not following or not adhering to the time-frame prescribed under the Regulations is detrimental to the Revenue, which means no action, including revocation, could be ordered. 11.3.1 Admittedly, there are two inquiry / investigation reports on record - one as early as in 2010 by the DRI authorities, based on which the licence of the appellant was kept under suspension. If this is considered as the inquiry report, then, the order of revocation vide impugned Order-in-Original which was passed in 2013 is clearly beyond the time-limit prescribed under the statute. 11.3.2 If the second / other inquiry report by the Assistant Commissioner is considered, which is in November 2012, then, again, the revocation order vide impugned Order-in-Original in March 2013 is also beyond the prescribed ninety-day time limit, which is against the principles underlying the statute. 12.1 Be that as it may, when we consider the issue on merits, the sol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
