Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Anax Air Services P. Ltd vs C.C.E.-New Delhi on 21 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. IV
Appeal No. C/51212/2015-CU(DB)
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 05/NK/POLICY/2015 dated 06.02.2015 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Delhi].
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
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?
M/s. Anax Air Services P. Ltd. .Applicants
Vs.
C.C.E.-New Delhi .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri U.K. Sharma & Ms. Urmil Sharma, Advocate for the Applicants Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR for the Respondent CORAM:
Hon'ble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 09.03.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 21.04.2016 FINAL ORDER NO. 51282/2016-CU(DB) Per B. Ravichandran:
The appellant is holding a CHA license and the present appeal is against order dated 06.02.2015 of Commissioner of Customs, (General) New Delhi, revoking the license of the appellant. The original authority also ordered forfeiture of security deposit of Rs.10,000/- and bank guarantee of Rs.50,000/- furnished by the appellant.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the officers of M&P Wing of Mumbai customs conducted certain investigation in December 2011 regarding illicit import of cigarette. After due investigation by the officers proceedings were initiated against one M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises for violation of provisions of Customs Act. Proceedings were also initiated against the appellant under CHA License Regulation 2004. Vide order dated 18.10.2012 the commissioner prohibited the appellant from working in Customs Mumbai Zones with immediate effect and forwarded intimation to Commissioner Customs, Delhi. On 29.11.2012 the Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi suspended the CHA License of the appellant with immediate effect. The said suspension was revoked by order of the same authority on 07.01.2014. On the same day a show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security paid by the appellant. A reply was filed by the appellant on 05.02.2014. An enquiry officer was appointed who filed his report on 10.11.2014. The case was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 06.02.2015 resulting in the revocation of appellants CHA license.
3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant contested the impugned order both on merits as well as on question of time bar in terms of Regulation 20 of CB Licensing Regulations, 2013. On merits it is submitted that the appellant have never dealt with consignments which are found to have contravened the provisions of Customs Act. The view of the original authority that the appellants have aided and abetted wrong activities are without any factual basis. The consignment imported by M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises were lying unclaimed since July 2011 and the appellants have no role to play in the said consignment. The allegation against the appellant was sought to be sustained only on the ground that Shri Shravanan, their employee at Mumbai, had done customs clearance work for importers whose background was not checked by the appellant. On perusal of the impugned order we find that the much emphasis was given on the appellants purported role in the attempted smuggling of cigarette in the name of one M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises. We find that in respect of the said consignment no Bill of Entry was filed by any person and the case was investigated based on the intelligence of the unclaimed cargo lying in the port. The importer name was linked only based on the Bill of Lading. We do not find any link to the appellant with reference to their activity as their customs agent.
4. The other main allegation is that the appellants did not verify the background of the importers. Here we note that it is not clear that in respect of which consignments import of which was made in violation of provisions of customs in which the KYC norms have not been fulfilled by the appellant. The appellants responsibility was sought to be fixed on the purported activity of one of his employees at Mumbai. The said employee is customs G card holder authorized by the appellant to transact with customs. Considering the facts and the reasons given in the impugned order we find no justification for revocation of license by the original authority.
5. Further, we also note that as pleaded by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant the time line prescribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013 has not been adhered to in the present case.
6. The offence report was dated 08.10.2012. The show cause notice was issued on 07.01.2014. The enquiry report was dated 10.11.2014. The above said Regulation clearly stipulates that show cause notice has to be issued within 90 days of offence report. Even it is to be considered that the new Regulations came into effect only from 21.06.2013. The enquiry report also has been filed more than 10 months after the show cause notice. As such we find this statutory time limit prescribed by the relevant regulations have not been followed in the present case. The Honble High Court of Madras in the case of A.M. Ahamad & Co. Vs. CC (Imports) Chennai 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad) and in the case of Sanco Trans Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai 2015 (322) ELT 170 (Mad.) held that the time limit prescribed under Regulations are to be strictly adhered to. Considering the above analysis we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, we set aside the same on merits as well as on the ground of not following time limits.
8. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on 21.04.2016] (B. Ravichandran) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Bhanu 5 C/51212/2015-CU(DB)