https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258145 The tribunal found that the charges of violating Regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d), and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004 were not proven. While the Member (Technical) supported the revocation of the CHA license based on some charges, the Third Member deemed the revocation as excessive and suggested a two-year suspension instead. The majority concluded that revocation was unwarranted and imposed a two-year ban on operating as a CHA. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the decision to suspend the CHA license for two years. en-us Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2016 18:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258145 The tribunal found that the charges of violating Regulations 12, 13(a), 13(d), and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004 were not proven. While the Member (Technical) supported the revocation of the CHA license based on some charges, the Third Member deemed the revocation as excessive and suggested a two-year suspension instead. The majority concluded that revocation was unwarranted and imposed a two-year ban on operating as a CHA. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the decision to suspend the CHA license for two years. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258145