Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)The Central Excise Act, 1944
A.M.Ahmed & Co vs Cce Tirunelveli on 15 May, 2009
9. There was no provision for prohibition in the earlier Regulations and there are no precedent decisions before us to consider the issue. Therefore, we have no option but to take a holistic view after considering the relevant provisions of Regulations to come to a logical conclusion which, in our view, would meet the ends of justice. There is only one decision which has been cited by the appellant. This decision is of the Honble High Court of Madras in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin [2013 (288) E.L.T. 497 (Mad.)]. In this case also, the challenge was only on the ground that no personal hearing was granted before passing the order of prohibition and therefore, the order was set aside and liberty was given to the Commissioner to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, we are not in a position to follow this order since we have already noticed a prima facie finding of the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), the license issuing authority who, after revoking suspension, left the matter to the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore with regard to prohibition. The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore promptly prohibited the CHA from working in any of the sections in his jurisdiction. It is also noticed that revocation of suspension is subject to the condition of the CHA undertakes to pay the differential duty along with fine and penalty in respect of the two Bills of Entry filed in Bangalore if it is found they are in anyway responsible to revenue loss. Such being the case, prohibiting the CHA from operating in the jurisdiction of Bangalore Commissionerate totally, in our opinion, is not justified. In fact, the provisions of Regulations 19 & 20 are considered, the suspension can continue till the enquiry is over, which, going by Regulation 20 can take up to 330 days. Once the suspending authority has decided that CHA can operate in other places, a prohibitory order, in our opinion, cannot be justified.
1