Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mukadam Fright Systems Private Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (General) ... on 1 April, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. Appeal No. C/89429/2014 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 30/2014 dt. 02.07.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai ) For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) ============================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No
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 : No
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes
authorities?
======================================================= M/s. Mukadam Fright Systems Private Ltd.
:
Appellant VS Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai :
Respondent Appearance Shri K.R. Pardeshi, Advocate with Shri N.S. Patel, Advocate for Appellant Shri D.K. Sinha, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent CORAM:
Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
Honble Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 01/04/2016
Date of decision : 01/04/2016
ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran
This appeal arises from Order-in-0riginal No. 30/2014 dt. 02.07.2014 vide which Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai continued the suspension of Customs Broker License NO.11/246 to the appellant herein pending inquiry proceedings as per CBLR 2013.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records it transpires that the Customs Broker License of the appellant was put under suspension of 18.6.2014 based upon report received from Additional Director General, DRI dt. 27.5.2014. On a specific query from the Bench during the last hearing on 25.1.2016, as to whether the inquiry proceedings have been initiated or otherwise, Ld. AR submits that inquiry proceedings has not been initiated as per the report. In our view in the present case, CBLR 2013 lays down time limit to initiate inquiry and completion of the same and pass an order stipulating a time limit of 9 months from the date of receipt of the offence report by the finalizing authority. In the present case, the time limit has already expired, in these circumstances we set aside the continue suspension of CHA License No. 11/246 of M/s. Mukadam Fright Systems Pvt. Ltd. and direct the finalizing authority to allow the appellant to function as CHA. However Revenue is at liberty to initiate the inquiry and complete the same, subsequently, take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
4. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra Shipping Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai 2015 (321) ELT 264 (Tri. Mumbai) and judgment of Honble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea Port Import), Chennai Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2014 (310) ELT 673 (Mad.).
5. The appeal is disposed of as indicated hereinabove.
(Pronounced in court) (C.J. Mathew) Member (Technical) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sm 3 Appeal No. C/89429/2014