2016 (6) TMI 754

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore, Hon'ble Tribunal by its Order dated 14.09.2011 set aside the suspension. 2. Apart from the above submission, Shri Anand says that show cause notice for revocation under Regulation 21 was issued on 5.7.2011. There was total disregard to the time schedule prescribed by the Regulation. Impugned order has been passed on 14.05.2015, i.e. after 4 years. Maximum 180 days are allowed to complete the proceedings under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR, 204 from the date of issuance of suspension notice. That not being followed, the proceedings of revocation of licence fails. 3. Further contention of the Counsel is that when the pleadings were made in the preliminary reply dated 19.07.2011 bringing the legal infirmity in the notice and most partic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e High Court of Madras has reminded the Authorities below by its series of judgements beginning from the judgement in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. 2014 (309) ELT 433 (MAD) till the judgement in the case of Saro International Freight Systems 2015 TIOL-2916-HC-MAD-CUS that the time limit prescribed by Regulation 20(2) and 20(1) of CHALR, 2013 and 2014 are not casual in nature but binding in character since CHAs are inflicted with penal consequence of law under such Regulation. Unless the Authorities are required to act within the time limit prescribed, punitive proceedings shall continue endlessly and the victim shall suffer without bread. Any interpretation to hold that Revenue need not follow the time limit shall bring chaos. When there is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced below for convenience of reading: "9. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennal 2014 (309) ELT 433 (Mad.) has held as under: 20. The time limit prescribed in Regulation 22(1) has to be understood in the context of the strict time schedule prescribed in various portions of the Regulations. Regulation 20(2), for instance, entitles the Commissioner, to suspend the licence of an agent, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. Regulation 22 (3) prescribes a time limit of 15 days. Regulation 22(1) prescribes a time limit within which action is to be initiated. It also prescribes the time limit under Regulation 22 (5). Therefore, considering the fact ....