Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Godfrey Prathap, Managing Partner vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 6 March, 2015
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/6/2008-SM [Arising out of Letter No. VIII-48-108-2006 dated 06/09/2007 issued Jt. Commissioner of CUSTOMS , BANGALORE ] For approval and signature: HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER 1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Godfrey Prathap, Managing Partner M/s Indus Logistics Tc.78/2990, Near Air Cargo Complex, Vallkadavu P.o., Trivandrum Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax BANGALORE-I NULL POST BOX NO 5400...CR BUILDINGS, BANGALORE, - 560001 KARNATAKA Respondent(s)
Appearance:
None For the Appellant Shri R. Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner(AR) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 06/03/2015 Date of Decision: 06/03/2015 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER Final Order No. 20587 / 2015 Per : B.S.V.MURTHY Nobody is present on behalf of the appellant. It is seen that the appeal has been coming up for hearing in the past and on no occasion, the appellant was present. Appeal has been listed on 04/11/2013, 11/07/2014, 23/01/2015 and 06/03/2015. According to statutory limit, maximum number of adjournments that can be given is only 4 and that to after giving valid reasons for such adjournments. In this case on all occasion in the past nobody was present on behalf of the appellant nor the appellant was present and no adjournment request had been received. Nevertheless the Tribunal has given 4 opportunities to the appellant to present his case which he has failed to utilise.
2. Heard the learned AR. He submits that the issue involved is whether the appellant should be given a CHA licence or not and in the case of G.P. Jaiswal Vs. CC, Lucknow [2008(226) ELT 707 (Tri.- Del.)], it has been held that in the case of rejection of application for CHA licence, there is no appeal to the Tribunal but the appellant has to make request to the Chief Commissioner. He submits that the decision may be followed.
3. I have considered the submissions. The facts in brief are as under:-
One 22/03/2001, when, in response to a newspaper advertisement and PN 44/2001 dt. 28/02/2001, appellant had applied for temporary CHA licence, their Clerk Shri Joseph Francis was qualified to get a licence because (i) of his 5 year experience in Customs House Work and (ii) of his possessing a permanent ID Card. Customs Department did not take any action till 30/06/2001 on which date the G-Card issued to Shri Joseph Francis had expired. In the meantime Shri Joseph Francis had temporarily joined another licensed CHA M/s. Capithan Agencies and obtained a G-Card No.8/06 which was valid till 09/06/2007. The respondent had rejected the application for issue of temporary CHA licence on the grounds that (i) the delay in processing the application was because of a direction issued by the High Court of Kerala, (ii) Shri Joseph Francis did not possess a valid G-Card, at the time of processing the application and (iii) Shri Joseph Francis had, at the time of processing the application, obtained a valid G-Card showing his employment with Capithan Agencies.
4. It can be seen from the above that the facts are covered by the precedent decision of the Tribunal against the applicant. Therefore the appeal has no merit and is rejected. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court) B.S.V.MURTHY TECHNICAL MEMBER Raja.
3