2016 (8) TMI 1117

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e has been issued by DRI on 28.09.2015 under Customs Act, 1962. The suspension of the license was also done on the basis of the report from the DRI which intimated that DRI was investigating the case of violation of Customs Act in which the role of CHA also appeared to be violative of the Customs Law.  The contention of the Ld. Advocate is that when the DRI itself has completed the investigation and issued a SCN on 28.09.2015, and still no further action in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR has been taken for revocation of license, suspension should not be allowed to continue. The Ld. Advocated cited CESTAT judgments in the case of Vinod Kumar vs CC New Dlehi 2011 (272) ELT 564 (Tri. Del) and R. S. Yadav & Co. vs CC N. Delhi 2012 (284) EL....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... clearly violates said sub regulation inasmuch as such SCN is required to be issued within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report and in such a scenario continuation of suspension would become untenable. However, even if, it is presumed that DRI SCN has not been received by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Indore, we need to take note of the fact that more than 14 months have elapsed since suspension of the appelant s CB license and more than 8 months has elapsed since issuance of the SCN by DRI and still no action for revocation of license under Regulation 20 has been initiated. It is trite to say that suspension cannot be a substitution for revocation and we cannot countenance a situation where suspension is continued for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... event to the date of review of the suspension etc. There is no evidence of such review done by Commissioner and notice as envisaged in para-7 of the Circular is not issued. So we consider it proper to consider the appeal. In this case, we find that no direct involvement of the CHA in fraudulent export of the goods and claim of the drawback is proved except that he filed shipping bills in those cases. If any evidence has been unearthed during further investigation conducted that has not been placed before the Tribunal. Further considering the time that has passed, the time limit indicated in Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8th April, 2010 for issue of final notice for revocation of license is already over. Such notice has not been issued so....