TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) drawing attention to an earlier SCN dated 14th October, 2011 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Import and General) proposing to revoke the CHA licence issued to the Petitioner and also forfeit the deposit. 2. The challenge in this petition is also to final inquiry report dated 19th January, 2015 and the consequential adjudication order dated 10th April, 2015 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) revoking the Petitioner‟s CHA licence, forfeiting the security deposit of Rs. 75,000/- and ordering enforcement of the deposit available in the Petitioner‟s case. 3. At the outset it requires to be noticed that the SCN dated 14th October, 2011 was issued to the Petitioner as well as to M/s S. K. Logistics, M/s Enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed out that the officer who had issued the letter dated 9th December, 2014, i.e., Mr O. P. Yadav, Assistant Commissioner had himself been reappointed as the Inquiry Officer in the matter and this was in replacement of the earlier Inquiry Officer. The said reappointment took place more than 3 years after the initiation of the proceedings. The Petitioner‟s counsel characterized this as an abuse of law and requested that the Petitioner‟s CHA licence be restored. Another detailed representation was made by the counsel of the Petitioner on 8th January, 2015. 6. On 19th January, 2015 Mr O. P. Yadav, Assistant Commissioner submitted his inquiry report pursuant to the SCN issued to the Petitioner and the other CHAs. A copy of the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bove application for amendment was allowed by this Court by an order dated 8th April, 2016 and the amended writ petition was taken on record. The Respondents were permitted to file reply to the amended writ petition. 11. It must be noticed that by order dated 25th April 2016 in Customs Appeal No. 14/2016, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Customs Department against the order dated 30th September 2015 passed by the CESTAT allowing the Appeal No. C/52059/2015 filed by M/s S. K. Logistics against the very same Order-in-Original dated 10th April, 2015 of the Commissioner revoking the CHA licence of M/s. S. K. Logistics. 12. The Court in the said order upheld the order dated 30th September, 2015 of the CESTAT which held that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd submitting a report. In the circumstances, the view taken by the CESTAT that the consequential order of revocation of licence is vitiated in law cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arise for consideration by this Court." 13. The present case is identical to that of M/s S. K. Logistics so far as the failure to adhere to the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR is concerned. The only explanation offered by the Department is that the earlier inquiry officer appointed to adjudicate the SCN dated 14th October, 2011 retired and it was only after the new inquiry officer was appointed by the letter dated 8th December, 2014 that the inquiry could be completed and a report submitted on 23rd January 2015. In the case of ....