9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 715X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) directing discontinuance of the service pending inquiry. By an order dated 30th April 2012 the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai revoked the suspension of CHA license by observing that it was being done as the investigation is still under progress before the investigating unit. The CESTAT took a view that this has been done despite a clear direction to restore respondent s license in the event of Department s failure to conclude the inquiry within three months of receipt of the CESTAT order passed on 15th December 2011. There are nothing incorrect in the conclusion arrived at by the CESTAT. We agree with the CESTAT that there is a specific direction that the Department h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the purported delay in Inquiry Proceedings in light of CESTAT Order dated 15th December 2011 vitiates the Order-in-Original dated 24th October 2019? (C) Whether, on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, CESTAT is correct in law in holding that keeping Revocation of Suspension of License vide Order dated 26th April 2012 a conditional one till the outcome of inquiry being contemplated under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 that is found absent in the Order of CESTAT dated 15th December 2011 is arbitrary and beyond the competency of Commissioner of Customs? 2. Respondent was holding a CHA license since 1983. Respondent was prohibited from operating at Chennai Customs Port in view of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one despite a clear direction to restore respondent s license in the event of Department s failure to conclude the inquiry within three months of receipt of the CESTAT order passed on 15th December 2011. The CESTAT has held as under : xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In the instant case the proceeding against the Appellant was not concluded at the first instance within the time limit prescribed for such completion got over. Therefore, the protection available under double jeopardy, though can only be extended by Constitutional Courts, would not come to the rescue of the present Appellant since the first proceeding had not been completed but was aborted. However, when there is a clear finding of the CESTAT that in such an event of non-completion of the procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
