TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d report of the enquiry submitted after the lapse of more than four years of the initiation of the enquiry? (2) In any event, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the enquiry report is vitiated by a gross delay of more than 4 years from the commencement of the enquiry? (3) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the findings recorded by it in its earlier order dated 29.02.2008 is not binding on it in the present proceedings? 2. This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Western Zonal Bench dated 29th October, 2014. 3. Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered in findings and of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions"). 5. Initially there was a suspension of this licence, but it is common ground that this suspension order was set aside by the Tribunal on 29th February, 2008. 6. Thus, the licence stood restored after the suspension was set aside following the Tribunal's order, but there is no explanation forthcoming as to why when the enquiry proceedings commenced on 19th November, 2008, but the report of such enquiry was not submitted till 4th January, 2013, by the Enquiry Officer, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, National Academy of Customs, Excise and Narcotics, Western Region, Bhandup, Mumbai. None pulled up this Enquiry Officer for this serious lapse and the Commissioner of Customs to whom the enquiry report was submitted, u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endency of the enquiry, the licence expired by efflux of time but unmindful of the enquiry, the same was renewed. That was renewed simply because the authorities did not notice any lapses on the part of the assessee-appellant. Further, without in any manner admitting the alleged guilt it is apparent that the licence was initially suspended but that suspension was set aside. Subsequently, from 28th March, 2013, till date, the appellant is without any licence. He has suffered immensely by loss of business. The appellant is, therefore, ready and willing for a substitution of the penalty by that of revocation of licence for three years and forfeiture of security deposit. That is how the appellant intends to close the chapter. The Court may take....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 29th February, 2008, by the Tribunal with a speaking order. The Tribunal agreed with the contention of the appellant's advocate that it had not contravened the provisions of Regulations 13(d) and 13(e) and only the charge of violation of Regulation 13(a) stands proved. Thus what was attributed to the appellant was an act of not obtaining proper authorization from the exporter whereas all other charges had no basis. Secondly, there was an argument raised specifically that revocation of the licence for contravention of Regulation 13(a) is a penalty/punishment disproportionate to the alleged lapses. A third argument was noted that the enquiry proceedings were not conducted properly and the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... efflux of time. Thus, the Tribunal should have noted that if the penalty is imposed on 28th March, 2013, from 29th November, 2008 to 28th March, 2013, the petitioner was merrily carrying on the business as a Customs House Agent and was also obtaining renewal of the licence which expired by efflux of time. Mr. Bharti does not dispute that such a licence is issued initially for a period of five years and renewable by efflux of time. Thus when the licence was suspended on 29th February, 2008, it was still in force. If the enquiry was continuing and the period of the licence expired allegedly by efflux of time during such enquiry, then, there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the licence came to be renewed. Once the facts are so glaring,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not contacting and obtaining authorizations from the exporter, but relying upon some middlemen, then, we find that revocation of licence was not a penalty which could have been imposed for this act. The Commissioner was aware that there were shipping bills and indicating the name of the exporter and that of M/s. Max Shipping. The proprietor of M/s. Max Shipping who was dealing with the appellant was Baburao K. Chinta. The appellant's witness in his statement had stated that he had collected the invoice and check list from this Chinta on 2nd January, 2006 along with a covering letter. Thus, not knowing the exporter, but having signed and filed the Shipping Bill on the basis of the documents received from M/s. Max Shipping was the real ch....