Tribunal overturns CHA license revocation due to lack of independent examination and violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original revoking the CHA license and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant's appeal was allowed with consequential relief as the impugned order lacked independent examination and violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized the need for informing the appellant of reasons for differing with the enquiry report, ultimately leading to the order's setting aside.

---

---

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the Order-in-Original revoking the CHA license and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant argues that this is the second round of litigation, highlighting the lack of jurisdiction in the previous order. The appellant had no objection to relying on the enquiry report but was found guilty of lack of diligence by the adjudicating authority. The appellant claims a violation of natural justice as they were not given reasons for differing with the enquiry report. The Revenue supports the findings of the adjudicating authority.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the charges of contravention of certain regulations were not proved in the enquiry report, while lack of diligence was established. The Tribunal cited a case where the licensing authority can take a different view but emphasized that the appellant should be informed of the reasons for differing with the enquiry report. It was found that the Commissioner of Customs, Pune merely followed the decision of the Mumbai Customs Commissioner, whose order had been set aside previously. As a result, the impugned order lacked independent examination and was deemed unsustainable in law, leading to its setting aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The order was to be given dasti.

---