TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (8) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng enquiry under the CHALR, 2004 and subsequently confirmed the suspension, after enquiry, concluding that the suspension of the CHA licence was absolutely necessary. Hence the appeal. 2. Mr. Sujay N. Kantawala, ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that firstly, in the case of TASS Clearing Services Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad-II reported in 2007 (80) RLT 224 (CESTAT-Ban.), the CESTAT has inter alia held that even a delay in suspending the CHA licence, after 61 days of detection of the case was set aside as it was not immediate as required under the regulations. He further stated that in the case cited above, the Tribunal had taken into consideration various precedents and the principles and held that suspension should be immediate, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inues to remain suspended. He placed before us the decision as reported in 2002 (141) E.L.T. 284 (Tri. - Del.) in the case of Falcon Air Cargo & Travel (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and buttressed the submission that assuming for the sake of argument, if at all, it was a case of supervision failure, in respect of the suo motu acts of the employee, on Mr. Santosh Dabhade, the period undergone, of suspension, was punishment enough and hence, the suspension of the CHA licence, should not be allowed to continue, any further. He hereafter drew our attention, to the show cause notice dated 18-2-2005, which was issued, by the ADG, DRI, Mumbai, in respect of seizure of three consignments of analgin which were imported by M/s. Kalin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Co. and hence, it is clear in these circumstances that no such proposal was put up for suspension of the CHA licence in respect of the cases under investigation by the Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai and DRI, Mumbai and hence, the adjudicating authority had clearly mixed up the issues and had acted beyond the scope of the original suspension order. 4. He, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to observe that the charged CHA miserably failed to discharge their obligations and hence abetted/aided in the said attempt to evade customs duty by mis-declaration of goods. When the DRI authorities in the show cause notice dated 18-2-2005 did not make this allegation against the CHA, the respondent Commissioner clearly ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the submissions. It is an undisputed fact that the CHA licence came to be suspended on 8-12-2006 in respect of the enquiries/investigations conducted in respect of the seizure of 16 MT of analgin. A show cause notice was issued much prior to the suspension of the CHA licence, not to the CHA and/or its partner, but to the former employee only. The DRI authorities have thus, in their wisdom, not invoked the penal provisions of the Act against the Appellant CHA. This clearly proves that as far back as February 2005, the investigating agency had not found and/or come across any erring act and/or violatory act on the part of the appellant CHA. It is also pertinent to note that there was a huge amount of correspondence which was carri....