TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (12) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... application filed by both the sides. The application filed by the Revenue is for modification of the order on the ground that there are decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court holding that no notice is required to be issued before the license is suspended. It is fairly admitted in the application itself that had these decisions brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal would not have granted interim relief and therefore, modification of the order has been sought. The application filed by the appellant firm is for implementation of the stay order passed by this Tribunal. 2. As regards modification application filed by the Revenue, I find that both the decisions cited by the Revenue in support of modif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to be rejected and rejected accordingly. 3. As regards application for implementation of the order filed by the appellants, learned advocate fairly agrees that it becomes in fructuous since the matter has come up for final hearing today. Accordingly, this application is also to be rejected but not before making some observation about attitude of the department in this case. I find that stay order was passed by this Tribunal on 12-10-2009 and it was communicated vide letter of the Tribunal dated 14-10-2009. The modification application has been filed by the Revenue on 8-12-2009. The learned advocate submitted that even this application was filed only after the appellant had written two letters to the department seeking implementation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant submitted that what was required was not a formal issue of show cause notice and passing the order is required under regulation 22 of CHALR and he pointed out that both the decisions cited by the Revenue also took the same view that procedure under regulation 22 need not to be followed but none of the decisions ruled out the possibility of hearing. He also relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decisions cited above to submit that appellants should have been given opportunity to present their case before suspension. As already observed above I find considerable force In this argument of the learned advocate. 5. The second contention raised by the learned advocate was that the order of the Commissioner has not made any clear finding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....knowing who they are. Even on receipt of the show cause notices C firm continued to work for the same importers. He submits that in the circumstances suspension was warranted and has been correctly ordered. 8. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. I agree with the learned advocate for the appellants that in this case action of the Com missioner led to civil consequences and suspension would mean that CHA firm would not be able to undertake their activity of CHA. work and therefore, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned advocate are squarely applicable to the present case. I also find that decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Freight Wings and Travels Limited - 2001 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....piry of the said period. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Commissioner proceeding against the appellants under Sub- regulation (I) of Regulation 21. 9. In this case even after the stay order was passed by this Tribunal, no remedial action has been taken. Instead, the department has chosen to file miscellaneous application. In the order itself it was clearly observed that "It appears that CHA firm was knowingly involved in mis-declaration of cargo and it appears that they have failed to perform their function as per law." The only objection was that Commissioner should have given opportunity. I regret to note that inspite of the clear order no opportunity has been given till date. Another aspect which was su....