2017 (6) TMI 741 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns license revocation and deposit forfeiture, citing time limit compliance.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit. It emphasized the mandatory ... Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - time limit for issuance of SCN - Department took more than 90 days time, which is not in conformity with Regulation 20 (5) of the CPLR 2013 - Held that: - Condition No.(5) in Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 has not been followed by the Department for revoking the licence - the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Impexnet Logistic Vs. CC (General) [2016 (6) TMI 348 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the time limits prescribed in CBLR, 2013 are sacrosanct and mandatory, which and to be strictly followed - revocation of licence and forfeiture of security deposit are not proper and justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues: Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit due to non-compliance with time limits prescribed in CBLR, 2013.Analysis:The appellant appealed against the revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit due to non-compliance with the procedures prescribed in the CBLR, 2013. The appellant argued that the Department took more than 90 days from the date of the show cause notice to submit the enquiry report, which violated Regulation 20 (5) of the CBLR, 2013. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice was issued on 25/04/2016, and the enquiry report was submitted on 22/08/2016, exceeding the 90-day period. Citing the Hon’ble Delhi High Court's decision in Impexnet Logistic Vs. CC (General), it was emphasized that the time limits prescribed in the CBLR, 2013 are sacrosanct and mandatory, and must be strictly followed. The High Court's previous decisions reiterated the mandatory nature of these time limits, emphasizing the importance of adhering to them. The Tribunal concluded that the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were not justified due to the non-compliance with the prescribed time limits, and therefore allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order.In summary, the judgment focused on the non-compliance with the time limits prescribed in the CBLR, 2013 for revoking the CHA license and forfeiting the security deposit. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of these time limits, citing previous decisions by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court. The non-adherence to the prescribed time limits led to the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit being deemed improper and unjustified, resulting in the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellant.