AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 520
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of their employees Shri Girish P. Manjeshwar, a Regulation 9 Pass Holder (now Regulation 8 as per CHALR, 2004) tendered his resignation and requested the appellant to relieve him from the services. Vide letter dated 10-8-2004, the appellant accepted the resignation of Shri Girish P. Manjeshwar w.e.f. 14-8-2004 and relieved him from the services of the Company as per the terms and conditions of their appointment letter issued to him. Vide letter dated 18-11-2004, the appellant intimated the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Establishment and Administration Department, New Custom House, Mumbai, that Shri Girish P. Manjeshwar, holding Custom Pass under Regulation 9 has left the services of the Company due to the resignation tendered by him. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir licence operative. In response to the said letters, the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, vide his letter dated 26-3-2007 communicated that their request to make their licence operative was not considered by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai. 5. Thereafter, since the communication from the Asstt. Commissioner was not an appealable order, the appellant, vide their letter dated 29-3-2007, requested the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai to pass an appealable order after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to them. 6. After granting an opportunity of personal hearing, the Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai rejected the submissions of the appellant and passed the impugned order dated 21-5-2007 conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nation by the employee of the company can amount to the change of the constitution. Further, it is seen that Mr. Girish P. Manjeshwar, a Regulation 9 employee, tendered his resignation on 18-3-2004, who was relieved from the services by the appellant on 14-8-2004, which itself establishes that the said employee did not retire from the services but was relieved due to his resignation. Proviso to Rule 15(2) of the CHALR, 2004 and the time limit of two years prescribed therein is applicable only in the case of demise or retirement of the person and not in the case of resignation, which is the case here. 10. Further, the proviso to Regulation 15(2) is not at all applicable in the instant case since the same is applicable only when there....