M/S Meenakshi Associates (P) Ltd vs Cce, Noida on 26 June, 2008
5. Being aggrieved the appellant is in appeal against the impugned order. The Counsel for the appellant, argues that section 19 (1) of CBLR, 2013 empowered the Commissioner to suspend by way of interim measure when the immediate steps are required to prevent broker in the evasion of revenue and further violations by the appellant. It is admitted fact that no further imports were made after March 2012 by the appellants firm. For the alleged violations if any, which had occurred before March, 2012, suspension as an interim measure in March 2014, almost after 2 years is bad in law and facts. It is further contended that the statement of CHA were recorded in November 13, in the course of enquiry which started sometime in July, 2013 and show cause notice in the Customs case under section 124 of the act was issued in December, 2013 for alleged undervaluation and evasion of duty. It is further urged that the inquiry notice was issued only in May, 2014 which is more than 2 years after the alleged events and/or misgivings on the part of the appellant. As such no sufficient reason is recorded by the Commissioner for suspending the appellant by way of an interim measure, pending inquiry and final disposal of the show cause notice issued, after the impugned order, in May 2014. It is further urged that the appellant CHA firm have suffered suspension for almost 12 months. The appellant and its employees livelihood is in question, as such the impugned order is fit to be set aside and the appellant be allowed to function as a custom broker/CHA pending final adjudication of the inquiry proceedings. It is further stated that there have been hardly any progress in the inquiry proceedings since issue of the Inquiry notice in May, 2014.