TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (2) TMI 522
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Licence was communicated. 2. Pursuant to the Order No. A 364/Cal/99, dated 13-5-1999 of this very Bench of the Tribunal, Shri Sanjay Kumar Bose, son of late Ganesh Chandra Bose and Shri Dinendra Kumar Bose, the surviving partner of the erstwhile firm of M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons, entered into a fresh Deed of Partnership made on 1-6-1999, inter alia, for carrying on the business of Custom House Clearing and Forwarding Agent and duly applied before the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata on 8-6-1999 for granting appropriate licence to the new firm for acting as a Customs House Agent in accordance with the provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 made under sub-section (2) of Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....granting a new CHA Licence in the name of the new firm of M/s. B.B. Bose & Sons does not arise; (b) genuineness of Modification Deed submitted on 21-6-1996 was verified by the Government registered Document Examiner who opined that it was a tampered document and not preparted in normal condition; (c) Shri Dinendra Kumar Bose was charged with evasion of payment of entry tax and was once arrested. The Commissioner's decision, which was communicated to the appellant vide the impugned letter, is under challenge before us. 3. The brief facts as mentioned in the aforementioned Order No. A 364/Cal/99, dated 13-5-1999 are reproduced below to throw light on the background material relevant to the present dispute : "1.1. M/s. B.B. Bos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Chandra Bose was proposed to be taken as a partner in accordance with the amended Deed of Partnership. 1.2. The dispute revolves around the two deeds, i.e. one of 1978 which provided - first preference to be given to Shri Bijoy Kumar Bose in the event of death of Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose and the other is modified Deed of April, 1996 which gave first preference to Shri Sanjay Kumar Bose in case of death of Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose. The matter after travelling through the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, was finally adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta. It was held by the Commissioner that the amended deed of April, 1996 was a tampered document and cannot be accepted as a genuine one. Accordingly, CHA Licence of M/s B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to said Tribunal's order. However, in the impugned order, the Commissioner has neither considered the fresh Deed of Partnership dated 1-6-1999 nor has considered the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal. The learned Advocate contends that all the conditions for granting of regular CHA Licence have been duly satisfied. As a matter of fact, the old firm consisting of Shri Ganesh Chandra Bose and Shri Dinendra Kumar Bose was functioning as a Custom House Agent duly licensed for the last 20 years and renewed from time to time. Since there were only two partners in the said old firm and one of the partners, namely, Ganesh Chandra Bose died on 4-10-1996, the Partnership firm automatically got dissolved as held by the Tribunal and in such circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....new firm adopting the same name of the old firm which stood dissolved. 4.2. As regards the observation of the Commissioner that genuineness of the modification Deed submitted on 21-6-1996 was verified by the Government Registered Document Examiner who opined that it was a tampered document not prepared in normal condition the learned Advocate argues that the same observation was made by him in the earlier order dated 27-1-1998 which was adversely commented upon by the Tribunal in their order dated 15-3-1999 and in view thereof, the Commissioner has no right, authority or jurisdiction to raise the same very issue once again. Moreover, the said observation concerning the modified Deed dated 21-6-1996 has got nothing to do with the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e learned Magistrate. 4.4. The learned Advocate strongly pleads that as the Commisioner has not found any irregularity either in the new Partnership Deed dated 1-6-1999 or the application dated 8-6-1999, he erred in rejecting the request of the appellant firm on the aforementioned grounds. He, therefore, submits that the appellant firm is eligible for the same category of CHA licence which was held by the old firm, as per the provisions contained in Regulations 16 and/or 17 of the CHA Regulations, 1984. 5. Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, learned SDR appearing for the Revenue, reiterates the reasoning contained in the impugned communication dated 21-10-1999. 6. After a close examination and a careful consideration of the argume....