Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
CESTAT held that the show-cause notice seeking revocation of the customs broker licence and penalty was jurisdictionally defective because it did not state the date of receipt of the offence report as mandated by Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013, a time limit treated as mandatory. Consequently, proceedings and consequential adverse findings premised on that notice are quashed to the extent they resulted in forfeiture of the broker's security deposit. The Tribunal declined to examine merits in view of the jurisdictional infirmity, set aside the impugned forfeiture order insofar as it affected the anonymized customs broker, and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.