Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Menzes Clearing Forwarding Pvt. Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs ... on 26 August, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II Appeal No. C/87595/15 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 17/2015-16 dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I). For approval and signature: Honble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, 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 : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Menzes Clearing Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for Appellant Shri M.K. Mall, AC (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 09.08.2016 Date of Decision: 26.08.2016 ORDER NO. Per: Ramesh Nair
The present appeal is against the Order-in-Original No. 17/2015-16 dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai-I by which the learned Commissioner ordered for continuation of suspension order of Custom Broker licence passed by Order No. 13/2015 dated 13.8.2015.
2. Shri Prasad Paranjape, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case Custom Broker licence of the appellant was suspended on 13.8.2015 and since then almost one year has passed and inquiry proceedings have not been concluded. Under the Custom Broker Licence Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) overall period for completing the inquiry proceedings provided is 9 months. Therefore, the suspension cannot be continued for unlimited period. He submits that suspension order may be revoked and inquiry proceedings can be continued. He submits that this Tribunal has been taking a consistent view that if the inquiry proceeding is not concluded within the overall period of 9 months, the suspension of CB licence should not be allowed to continue. In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments: -
(a) Concorde Zoom Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad 2013 (291) ELT 298
(b) Schankar Clearing & Forwarding Vs. Commissioner 2012 (283) ELT 349 (Del)
(c) Rajeev Mayer Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi 2014 (308) ELT 146
(d) Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai 2015 (329) ELT 269
(e) Durga Clearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai vide Tribunals order No. A/2035/15/CB dated 8.7.2015.
3. Shri M.K. Mall, learned AC (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that the report of alleged offence related to the Bill of Entry was filed on 7.4.2015, the order for suspension of the CB license was passed on 13.8.2015, however, the inquiry proceedings has not been concluded even after lapse of almost one year. This Tribunal is taking the consistent view that if the inquiry proceeding is not concluded within the overall period of 9 months, the suspension of CB license cannot be allowed to be continued for unlimited period. Some of the decisions are referred below:-
(a) Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai 2015 (329) ELT 269
(b) Durga Clearing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai vide Tribunals order No. A/2035/15/CB dated 8.7.2015.
5. In view of the consistent view taken in the above decisions, we are of the considered view that the continuation of suspension of CB license cannot be allowed. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. The Revenue is free to continue its inquiry proceedings under CBLR, 2013.
(Pronounced in Court on 26.08.2016)
(Raju) (Ramesh Nair)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
3
Appeal No. C/87585/15