TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 545
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing question was framed for consideration: "Did the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in the facts and circumstances of this case fall into error in directing the Competent Authority to conclude the investigation and take a final decision in the inquiry, contrary to the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 (CBLR), as interpreted by this Court in its various judgments?" 3. The facts in brief are that the Appellant was issued a Customs Broker Licence by the Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi valid upto 9th October, 2021. A letter dated 28th March, 2016 was written by the Joint Commissioner (SIIB-Exports) informing the Commissioner, Customs General Commissionerate, New Custom House, New Delhi about the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eriod of three months by providing an opportunity to the Appellant, as per law and thereafter, the Competent Authority will take final decision. 4. On the aforesaid direction, the appeal as well as miscellaneous application are disposed of." 6. It is after the above order that a Show-Cause Notice ('SCN') dated 16th December, 2016 was issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General) to the Petitioner in terms of Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013. 7. This Court has in Overseas Air Cargo Services v. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi 2016 (340) ELT 119 (Del) emphasised that if the mandatory time limits under the CBLR 2013 for various stages is not adhered to the actions taken thereunder including the revocation of licences would be vu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondent to issue the SCN beyond what has been provided under Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013. The CESTAT ought to have noted Regulation 20 (1) CBLR which mandates issuance of a SCN within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report. The CESTAT should have ascertained when in fact the offence report was issued and whether any SCN was issued within 90 days thereof. Instead the CESTAT got its facts wrong. It termed the order dated 1st June 2016 as an order suspending the Appellant's licence when in fact that order revoked the licence. Secondly, the CESTAT failed to refer to the CBLR. Thirdly, there was no question of the CESTAT granting further time of three months to the Respondents "to conclude the investigation which is still pending....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inal' offence report was dated 16th December, 2016. Mr. Singh could not give any affirmative answer. What transpired after the order of the CESTAT is evident from para 13 of the SCN dated 16th December 2016 which reads as under: "13. In compliance of directions given by the Hon'ble CESTAT, a letter dated 20.10.2016 was sent to the Investigating Agency (ICD, Tughlakabad) seeking final investigation report/ SCN issued under Customs Act, 1962 within 5 days in response to which it was conveyed vide letter C. No. VIII/ICD/10/TKD/SIIB -Exp./INV/Tuticorin Lic./192/2015/38427 dated 25th October 2016 by the Additional Commissioner (SIIB), ICD, TKD that the case has been transferred on 23rd September 2016 to the Directorate of Revenue Intell....