TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave wrongly been confirmed against as they have not faulted under CBLR, 2013. However the promptly though the time limit prescribed under Regulation 19 of CBLR, 2013 had not been observed. It has been argued that these are mandatory provisions and failure to adhere to this limit of entire proceeding. He relied on the following cases- (i) Ambika Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import & General), New Delhi - 2016 (343) ELT 1022 (Tri.-Del) (ii) Lohia Travels & Cargo 2016 Vs. Commissioner of Customs, General, New Delhi - (331) ELT 614 (Tri.-Del.) (iii) Impexnet Logistic Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (338) ELT 347 (Del.) (iv) Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Principal Commissioner is not known since the same has not been stated anywhere in the records. (ii) The CB licence has been suspended on 20.5.2016. However the order for suspension in terms of Regulation 19(1) has been issued on 15.6.2016. It is strange that the order has been executed about a month before it is issued. (iii) The date of actual suspension being 20.5.2016, a hearing should have been granted to the Appellant within 15 days from the date of suspension in terms Regulation 19(2) i.e. by 4.6.2016 but the same was granted on 20.6.2016 and the order which should have been passed within 15 days of the hearing has been passed on 8.7.2017. (iv) A notice in terms of Regulation 20(1) should have been is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n terms of Regulation 20(7) the learned Principal Commissioner should have passed the order by 19.2.2017 going by the time schedule provided in the Regulation 20. In the present instance the inquiry report has been submitted on 31.7.2017 and from that date also the learned Principal Commissioner should have passed the order by 30.10.2017 whereas in actual fact the order has been issued on 7.12.2017." The appellant has relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of Ambika Enterprises (Supra). In the said case the order was quashed for the reason that inquiry report was not submitted within 9 months of the date of which the Order-in-Original was brought to the notice of the Licensing Authority. The appellant also have relied in the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d revocation of CHA licence. In Para 7.1 of the said Circular, it was noted as under : "7.1 The present procedure prescribed for completion of regular suspension proceedings takes a long time since it involves inquiry proceedings, and there is no time limit prescribed for completion of such proceedings. Hence, it has been decided by the Board to prescribe an overall time limit of nine months from the date of receipt of offence report, by prescribing time limits at various stages of Issue of Show Cause Notice, submission of inquiry report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs recording his findings on the issue of suspension of CHA license, and for passing of an order by the Commissioner of Custo....