Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Swati Enterprises vs C.C., (Import & General), New Delhi on 5 December, 2016
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 5.12.2016 Customs Appeal No.52457 of 2016 Arising out of the order-in-original No.42/.SM/POLICY/2016 dated 27.5.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi. Swati Enterprises .. Appellant Vs. C.C., (Import & General), New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Present Ms.Surabhi Sinha, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri H.C. Saini, A.R. for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. Ashok K.Arya, Technical Member Final Order No.55814/2016 Per Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra:
The present appeal is filed against the Order-in-Original No.42/2016 dated 27.5.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi. The appellant is the Custom Broker for the reasons mentioned in the show cause notice. Its licence was revoked after due procedure of law. Being aggrieved , the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. With this background, we have heard Ms. Surabhi Sinha, ld. Counsel for the appellant-assessee and Shri H.C. Saini, ld. A.R. for the respondent-Revenue.
3. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that in the instant case, offence report is dated 9.3.2015 and show cause notice on the basis of report was issued on 10.9.2015.
4. It may be mentioned that Regulation 20(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 states The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence or impose penalty and requiring the said Custom House Agency to submit within thirty days, to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Custom House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
5. From the above, it appears that limitation was 90 days. In the instant case, the said limitation was violated as more than 90 days were taken. The above proceedings appear to be time barred. Further it may be mentioned that after issuing show cause notice an inquiry report was submitted on 3.3.2016 and the final order was passed on 27.5.2016.
6. As per Regulation 20(5), it is mentioned that -
At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs shall prepare a report of the inquiry recording his findings and submit his report within ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1).
7. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that in the instant case, the Inquiry report was time barred.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Department submits that the importer had gone to the Honble Delhi High Court in a Writ Petition filed by Micromax Informatics for release of the goods where the appellant has nothing to do and High Court has denied any relief in the Writ Petition. The appellant was not a party at all.
9. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the following decisions:
a) C.C. (Seaport/Import) Chennai vs. Sanco Trans Ltd. 2016 (334) ELT 274 (Mad.);
b) Saro International v. C.C. Chennai VIII 2016 (334) ELT 289 (Mad.);
c) A.M. Ahmed & Co. vs. C.C.E. (I), Chennai 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.);
d) Final Order No.C/A/52967/2016 CU (DB) dated 3.82016 Anubhav Cargo Movers v. C.C., New Delhi; and
e) Final Order No.C/A/51959/2016 CU (DB) dated 1.6.2016 M/s Kamal Schgal vs. .C.C., new Delhi (Import & General).
10. In the above mentioned cases, it was held that once the action is time bared, no order can be passed by the Commissioner for revoking licence.
11. In view of the legal settled position and by considering the facts, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The appellant will get the relief.
(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President ( Ashok K.Arya) Technical Member scd/ Appeal No.C/52457/2016 1