Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Mahindra Shipping Agency vs Commissioner Of Customs (General) ... on 9 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II APPEAL NO. C/87215/14-MUM [Arising out of Order-in- Original No. 64/2014 dated 5/3/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai] For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) =======================================================
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. Mahindra Shipping Agency :
Appellant VS Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai :
Respondent Appearance Shri. N.D. Gerge, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Senthil Nathan, Dy. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 9/12/2014
Date of decision 9/12/2014
ORDER NO.
Per : P.R. Chandrasekharan
The appeal arises from Order-in- Original No. 64/2014 dated 5/3/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, wherein the suspension of CB licence no 11/ 369 of M/s. Mahindra Shipping Agency has been continued pending inquiry proceedings in the matter.
2. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the time limits laid down, the inquiry has to be completed within 9 months from the date of receipt of the offence report. In the present case, the offence report received by the Licencing Authority on 6/1/14. Even though about 11 months have elapsed since then, there is no progress in the inquiry. In these circumstances, he pleads for setting aside the suspension order and allowing the appellant to function as a CHA.
3. The ld Dy. Commissioner (A.R.) appearing for the Revenue was asked to find out status of the inquiry proceedings when the case came up for consideration last time on 5/12/2014. The ld Counsel A.R. submits that an inquiry officer has been appointed; however the inquiry has not been completed and only one round of hearing has taken place on 26/11/2014 and therefore, it is his plea that some more time be given to complete the inquiry.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides.
3.1 CBLR 2013 lays down time limits to initiate the inquiry and completion of the same and for passing of the final order. The stipulated time limit available is 9 months from the date of receipt of the offence report by the licensing authority. The CBEC also, in circular no. 9/2009 dated 8/4/2009, has emphasized the need for completion of inquiry within time limit stipulated.
3.2 In the present case time limit has already expired. In these circumstances, we set aside the continued suspension of CHA licence No. 11/ 369 of M/s. Mahindra Shipping Agency and direct the Licencing Authority to allow the appellant to function as CHA. However, Revenue is at liberty to complete the inquiry and thereafter take appropriate action in accordance with law. The appeal is disposed of the above terms.
(Dictated in court) Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.R. Chandrasekharan Member (Technical) SK 2