2005 (4) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oth sides. 2. The issues involved is whether the volume of work handled at Kandla and the volume of work handled at Mumbai are to be taken to fulfil the norms laid down under the Public Notice. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellant was granted a CHA licence at Kandla and Mumbai on the regular basis. By a show cause notice dated 3-7-2000, the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d Counsel for the appellants is that due to cyclone at Kandla Port, the licence granted for the Port remained un-operational and the major work of Kandla Port was transferred to Mumbai Port for handling. If during the relevant period, the volume of work handled by the appellant at Kandla as well as Mumbai Port are taken together, it will appear that the appellant has handled more volume of work th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in the Public Notices. The ld. JDR has, however, rebutted the contention of the Counsel and submitted that Kandla Port became operational within 15 days. 6. We are in full agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal in the case of Amish Shipping Agency v. CCE C, Pune. We do not find any bar in the Public Notices that the work handled at one permitted station cannot be taken into account for .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X