Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cc, Chennai vs N.T. Rama Rao on 12 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/CO/15/2008 & C/344/2007
(Arising out of Review Order No. 26/2007 dated 07.09.2007, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
_______________________________________________________
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 the Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _______________________________________________________
CC, Chennai : Appellant
Vs.
N.T. Rama Rao : Respondent
Appearance Shri Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the appellant Shri S. Murugappan, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President, Date of hearing : 12.08.09 Date of decision : 12.08.09 Final ORDER No._____________ In this appeal the Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs dropping the proceedings initiated against the Custom House Agent for non-compliance with certain regulations of the CHA Licence Regulations, 2004 and dropping the proceedings for imposition of penalty and permitting the CHA to conduct his business in the normal course.
2. Heard both sides. It has already been held by the Tribunal in the case of A.S. Vasan & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai 2008 (230) ELT 374 that an order relating to renewal of CHA licence is administrative in nature and not a quasi-judicial order against which an appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that an appeal does not lie before the Tribunal following the judgment of the Honble Calcutta High Court in M.Dutta Agency Vs. Commissioner 1998 (1) LCX 77 and Tribunals decision in P. Cawasji and Co. 2000 (119) ELT 606 and G.P. Jaiswal 2008 (226) ELT 707. The Tribunals order in A.S. Vasan & Sons cited supra has been upheld by the Bombay High Court as seen from 2009 (238) ELT 217.
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions and also following the ratio of the Tribunals order in Tass Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2009 (238) ELT 671, I reject the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable before the tribunal.
4. Cross-objection is dismissed as it is only in the nature of comments on/reply to the Revenues appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE PRESIDENT BB 3