2010 (7) TMI 390

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. PN/R/Miraj/010/2004 dated 22-4-2004 issued to them. 2. After hearing both the sides at length on the stay application, we find it that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Accordingly, after considering the impugned order and with the consent of both the sides, we take up the appeal for final disposal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were granted licence in the name of Real Logistics Shipping Agencies, (a partnership firm under deed of partnership executed by three partners namely Shri Manoj Haridas Kotak, Shri Savio Climark Gomes and Shri Yudhistir Shrimotiram Batla) vide CHA Licence bearing No. PN/R/Miraj/010/2004 under CHALR, 2004. In 2007, the partner viz. Shri Savio Climark Gomes a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of cancellation of licence the appellants are before us. 4. The learned DR took an objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal on the ground that this order does not have a preamble which indicates where the appeal of this order lies. He further submitted that it is an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. 5. To decide the issue we have gone through the provision of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same are produced us under :- "Section 129A. Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order - ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant prior to change in constitution. There is no dispute that the appellants have fulfilled their obligation to intimate within 60 days of the change in constitution. The Commissioner in the impugned order has given some other grounds that it is a case of transfer of licence under Regulation 12 which is not permissible under law. The learned Advocate also produced the Form 'E' under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which confirms the notice of the change of constitution of the firm effecting the change by indicating Shri Haresh V. Pandya and Shri Manoj Haridas Kotak as the new partners. These documents were produced before the Commissioner who failed to consider the same. Moreover the Commissioner has held that the continuing partner is havi....