Investigation report from 2014 treated as offence report but show cause notice issued in 2018 exceeded limitation period

CESTAT Ahmedabad allowed the appeal on limitation grounds. The investigation report dated 17.10.2014 was treated as the offence report, but the show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2018, clearly exceeding the limitation period. Since the SCN itself was time-barred, proceedings for license revocation, security forfeiture, and penalty imposition under CBLR 2013 could not be sustained. The case involved import of contraband cigarettes violating multiple CBLR regulations.

---

---

Issues: Violation of customs regulations, issuance of show cause notice beyond the limitation period, challenge to the order of revocation of license, forfeiture of security, and imposition of penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Orders-In-Original related to a case where contraband goods were found in containers declared as waste paper. The appellant was charged with various violations under CBLR 2013 and CBLR 2018, leading to a show cause notice seeking revocation of the custom broker license, forfeiture of security, and imposition of a penalty.

2. The appellant challenged the show cause notice's timing, arguing it was issued after the limitation period. The High Court directed the appellant to approach the Tribunal, which led to Appeal No. 10787 of 2021. The Commissioner held that the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period, which was challenged in the said appeal.

3. The Tribunal had previously set aside an order against another broker, Saarthee Shipping Company, due to delays in issuing orders. In the current case, the appellant obtained an investigation report recommending proceedings against them. The show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2018, based on an investigation report dated 17.10.2014, treated as the offense report.

4. Appeal No. 10788 of 2021 specifically addressed the issue of limitation. The order noted the show cause notice was issued within 90 days of receiving the offense report, dated 17.10.2014. The appellant obtained the investigation report through an RTI request in 2022, supporting the claim that the show cause notice was time-barred.

5. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period did not survive. Therefore, the question of revocation of license, forfeiture of security, and imposition of a penalty did not arise. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders were set aside due to the show cause notice being barred by limitation.

6. The judgment was pronounced on 20.09.2024, concluding that the appeals were allowed based on the limitation issue, rendering the show cause notice invalid and the subsequent orders irrelevant.

---