Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2017 (3) TMI 1430

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt is licensed to operate in the custom house for clearance of import/export cargo. Based on certain investigation conducted by the officers of Custom Department, proceedings were initiated against the CHA appellant both under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and under the provisions of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation 2004/ Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR) 2013. In the present appeal, we are concerned with the proceedings under CBLR, 2013 only. On conclusion of the adjudication of the show cause notice dated 08/01/2014, the Commissioner vide his impugned order ordered forfeiture of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the security deposit of CHA appellant, in terms of CBLR, 2013. A CHA appellant is against this order. The Re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....used the appeal records. The CHA appellant raised legal, preliminary objection regarding the legality of the proceedings resulting in the impugned order. As such, there is no detailed submission on merits of the case. We take up the legal objection against the impugned order. We note that, admittedly, the enquiry report which is to be submitted within 90 days of issue of show cause notice in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR has been submitted, in the present case, after 10 months. On this non-adherence of time limit alone the proceedings are to be held as invalid. We note that, by now, it is a well settled legal position that the time limits prescribed in the Regulations are mandatorily to be followed. Failure to adhere to the said time limit....