TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal denies Stay App for CHA Licence revocation, citing limited jurisdiction under Rule 41</h1> <h3>M/s M.K. Shipping Services Versus Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI rejected the Stay Application for revocation of a CHA Licence, citing its limited power under Rule 41 of the CESTAT ... Revocation of CHA Licence - Held that:- under Rule 41, this Tribunal has limited power to exercise and pass any order to give effect in relation to its order or to prevent abuse of its process order to secure end of justice. It provides that the Tribunal can only pass miscellaneous order in respect of all the order which have already been passed or to prevent abuse of its process to secure the ends of justice. In case of revocation of CHA Licence of CHA, passing stay order does not fall within the four corners of Rule 41. Therefore it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to pass stay order in a case wherein CHA Licence was revoked by the Adjudicating Authority. Moreover passing stay order from operation of impugned order will be as good as allowing the appeal and CHA Licence will get restored. This Tribunal in case ofM.P. Agro Vs. CC [2014 (12) TMI 859 - CESTAT MUMBAI] has held that there is no provision for granting stay under Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982. We are therefore of the view that stay order of this Tribunal could not be passed under Rule 41 particularly in case of revocation of CHA licence - Stay denied. Issues: Stay application for revocation of CHA Licence.Analysis:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI heard a Misc. Application for staying the operation of the Impugned Order related to the revocation of a CHA Licence. The appellant's counsel argued the case's merits and presented various judgments, while the Revenue's representative strongly opposed the Stay Application. The Revenue contended that granting a stay would effectively restore the CHA Licence, equating to allowing the appeal. The Tribunal clarified that in cases of demand of duty, a stay only suspends recovery pending appeal, not setting aside the demand. However, in the case of CHA Licence revocation, granting a stay would essentially overturn the appealed order, allowing the CHA to resume operations. The Tribunal referred to Rule 41 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, stating its limited power to issue orders to give effect to its decisions or prevent abuse of process for justice. The Tribunal concluded that granting a stay in a CHA Licence revocation case was beyond its jurisdiction under Rule 41, as it would effectively allow the appeal and restore the CHA Licence. Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized that Rule 41 does not provide for granting stays in such situations. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Stay Application, stating that passing a stay order would be akin to allowing the appeal and restoring the CHA Licence. The decision was pronounced in court on 8/10/15.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
