Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Nitco Roadways P. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs (Gen), Mumbai on 15 December, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI
Appeal No. C/282/10
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 63/2009 dated 15.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, 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 Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication
in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Yes
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
M/s. Nitco Roadways P. Ltd.
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri N.D. George, Advocate for the appellant Shri Navneet, Commissioner (AR) for the respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) Date of hearing : 15.12.2011 Date of decision : 15.12.2011 O R D E R No:..
Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) The appellants are in appeal against the order of suspension of their CHA licence no. 11/1051 under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 on 15.12.2009. The ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that afater suspension of their CHA licence, no proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 has been initiated against them. Therefore, the impugned order be revoked.
2. On the other hand, Shri Navneet, AR submits that in pursuant to the report sent by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai to Commissioner of Customs (General), Delhi their CHA licence has been suspended on 17.2.2011 by the Delhi Commissioner of Customs also and they have filed an apepal against the said suspension of their CHA licence before the Delhi bench of the Tribunal. Therefore matter may not be heard.
3. Heard both sides.
4. We find that afater suspension of their CHA of the appellant in December 2009 no post decisional hearing has been granted to them. Moreover, no proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHALR has been initiated against the appellant. In Delhi also, their licence has been suspended on the reports sent by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. At this stage, appellant undertook that if we pass the order, they will withdraw their appeal against the suspension in Delhi. In the interest of justice, we pass the following order. The Commissioner of Customs (General), Delhi if he wishes to initiate proceedings under Regulation 22 under CHALR, 2004, he shall complete the proceedings under Regulation 22 ibid within three months from today i.e. to appoint enquiry officer, issue the charge-sheet, complete the proceedings and take an appropriate action. If the concerned Commissioner fails to complete the proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHALR within three months, the order of suspension of the CHA licence shall stand revoked.
5. Appeal is disposed of in the above manner. Order be given dasti.
(Dictated in Court) (P.R. Chandrasekharan) (Ashok Jindal) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) SR 3