Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing K.M. Ganatra And Co. vs Commissioner Of Customs (G) on 2 March, 2001

Jai International vs Commissioner Of Customs (General), ... on 18 April, 2011

The learned SDR has canvassed a period of three years, in view of K.M. Ganatra & Co vs Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai 2007 (219) ELT 316 (Tri-Mumbai), for keeping the appellants licence under revocation. We have perused the Tribunals order in K.M. Ganatras case and have found that this Tribunal, on the facts of that case, considered that revocation for a period of three years from the date of suspension of licence (i.e. 1.3.2004) would be sufficient alongwith forfeiture of security deposit. In the instant case, we have already indicated that the CHA licence has been out of operation for a period of a little over seven months. The appellant has submitted that they have already suffered a lot over the said period on account of suspension/revocation of this licence. It has also been submitted that their employees have also gone without livelihood over the period. Without the subject licence, the appellant cannot carry on the business in any other jurisdiction. After giving due consideration to these circumstances coupled with the gravity of offence found against the appellant, we hold the view that the appellant is not entitled to instant restoration of the licence and has to go without it for a further period of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The forfeiture of security deposit shall stand upheld. In the result, upon expiry of the said period of one year, the appellant will be entitled to get the CHA licence restored to them against fresh security deposit. The impugned order will stand modified to this effect.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Baid International Service vs -Kolkata(Admn Airport) on 21 August, 2023

I find that Regulation 10(n) of C.B.L.R., 2018 puts strict liabilities on the C.B. to verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number, Goods and Services Tax Identification Number (GSTIN), identity of his client and functioning of his client at the declared address by using reliable, independent, authentic documents, data or information. Though, Mr. Praveen Kumar stated in his written submission as well as oral submission during PH that they had physically visited the premises of the exporters, he has no documentary evidence in this regard. It is admitted that physical verification of addresses of the exporters is not expected by the CB but there is no evidence to suggest that he verified the 8 Customs Appeal No. 75597 of 2022 existence of the exporters over phone or mail. The plain reading of the obligation of Custom Broker under Rule 10 of CBLR, 2018 shows that Customs Broker is created as link between Customs authorities and the exporters/importers with an object of facilitating the clearances at Customs as well as the importers/exporters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.M. Ganatra and Co. v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 2016(332) ELT 15(SC) while relying upon the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Noble Agency vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai reported in 2002 (142) ELT 84 has held as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1