TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort), 2004. The application is for stay of operation of the Commissioner's order. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal itself finally and, accordingly, we take up the appeal. 2. The appellant M/s. Rishad Shipping & Cleaning Agency Pvt. Ltd. obtained a licence from the Commissioner of Customs, Indore (Licence No. IND/R-I/99) in the year 1999 for operating business "in any Customs Station in India." The appellant obtained permission from the Commissioners of Customs, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Chennai and Kolkata to operate business in the respective Customs Zones, on the strength of the licence issued by the Indore Commissioner. The permission of the Commissioner of Customs (General), M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed their written statement of defence vis-a-vis these charges. The Commissioner appointed an Inquiry Officer who, upon completion of enquiry, submitted a report, wherein the CHA was exonerated from Charge I and found guilty of the other charges. It was acting upon this Inquiry Report that the learned Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned order debarring the CHA from operating business in Mumbai Customs Zone. 4. In the present appeal, the CHA submits that the Commissioner's order is based on extraneous considerations. Elaborating the grounds of the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Commissioner travelled beyond the scope of the show-cause notice to indict the appellant in relation to a ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt and submits that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are ambiguous and do not disclose any cogent reason to indict the CHA under Regulations 13(k) and (n) of the CHALR, 2004. It is prayed that the Commissioner's order be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 5. We have heard the learned JDR also who has reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner. 6. After considering the submissions, we have found strong reasons to interfere with the Commissioner's decision. The charges against the CHA were framed with reference to Regulations 13(d), (k) and (n) of the CHALR, 2004. The first charge was dropped. The second and third charges were held to have been proved. The articles of charges are reproduced below :- "1.&em....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....MD of the CHA Firm, in his statement dated 9-1-2008 accepted that the Job Register was not maintained properly and the instant entry of M/s. Montu Enterprises was not made therein. Further, the CHA in the written submission dated 21-5-2008 has confirmed that after a certain period, all entries of Bills of Entries and Shipping Bills are made in the job register. That since the processing of bill of entries/shipping bill is computerized, the moment a Bill of Entry is filed, the details of Bills of entries are available in the system against that particular CHA. The CHA has admitted that they have been making entry in the job register only after completely processing the documents. Since the CHA himself admitted that they have not maintaine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., without being asked to do so. The very same fact was reiterated in the context of framing Charge III against the CHA, clearly disclosing overlapping of allegations between Charges I and III. Charge II pertains to maintenance of Job Register by the CHA. It was alleged that the CHA had not properly maintained the Job Register. This very allegation was repeated under Charge III to hold that the CHA had committed breach of Regulation 13(n). Thus the grievance raised by the appellant against the articles of charges framed by the Commissioner appears to be genuine. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel, the Inquiry Officer's report is also vitiated by the fact that the charges framed by the Commissioner in the aforesaid manner were foun....