Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sharda Clearing And Forwarding Agency ... vs Commissioner Of Customs (General), ... on 26 November, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI Appeal No. C/187/09Mum (Arising out Order-in-Original No. 94/2008 dated 19.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai.) For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, 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?
Sharda Clearing and Forwarding Agency Pvt Ltd
Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate for the appellant
Shri P.K. Agarwal, SDR for the respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 26.11.2009
Date of decision : 26.11.2009
O R D E R No:..
Per: Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is by a Custom House Agent (CHA) challenging the suspension of their licence. The learned Commissioner of Customs suspended their licence on 19.12.2008. Today, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that any show-cause notice under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004 is yet to be issued and, therefore, the suspension order is bereft of bona fides.
2. On the other hand, the SDR submits that an opportunity of post-decisional hearing was given to the CHA as early as in February 2009 but it was not availed of. It is also pointed out that a reply to the hearing notice dated 9.2.2009 was given by the CHA only on 3.11.2009. The correspondence has been placed on record.
3. It appears from these records that the CHA did not show sincere interest in being heard by the Commissioner on the question whether the suspension of their licence should be continued or not. The CHA should have co-operated with the Commissioners proceedings. In these circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of this appeal with a direction to the learned Commissioner to afford one more reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the CHA on the aforesaid question. Such hearing should be held within thirty days from today and the appellant should wholeheartedly co-operate with the Commissioner.
4. In the result, we reject this appeal. If the Commissioners further order happens to be against the appellant, they have once again the remedy of appeal. The learned Commissioner shall pass a speaking order on the aforesaid question untrammelled by any observations contained herein.
(Dictated in Court) (B.S.V. Murthy) (P.G. Chacko) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) rk 3