2018 (8) TMI 372

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lal Sarda, Shri The license of the appellant was authority upto 14/07/2001 and on 13/06/2001, they submitted application for removal of the license. Meanwhile, on 17/07/2001, one of the partners of the appellant firm, Shri Jayantilal Gokaldas expired. On 24/07/2001, intimation was given to the department that one of the partners has expired and remaining partners will carry on the business of the firm. Thereafter on 01/09/2001, the appellant firm requested the Commissioner to grant two months time for submitting new partnership deed. On 20.12.2001, the Superintendent of Customs, Ramnagar requested the appellant firm to file a fresh application for CHL License along with new partnership deed. He pointed out that during the period 2001-2003, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as made after expiry of one month. 3.1. Ld. Counsel, further argued that the enquiry report of the Asst. Commissioner (enquiry officer) was in their favour and recommended grant of license. 4. Ld. AR relied on the impugned order. 5. We have gone through rival submission. Regulation 15 (1) of the CHALR regulations prescribed as follows: " Change in constitution of any firm or a company-(I) In the case of any firm or a company, holding a license under these regulations, any change in the constitution thereof shall be reported by such firm or company, as the case may be, to the Commissioner of Customs as ea possible, and any such firm or a company indicating such change shall make a fresh application the said Commissioner of Customs withi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4.08.2001, 20.01.2001, 24.01.2002, 28.03.2002, 28.01.2003, 02.12.200.3 and further fresh application filed by CHA dated 07.04.2004, 07.09.2004 and 15.10.2004 only go to show that department has indulged in clarifactory correspondence. Department, having asked to file fresh applications three times and after the CHA filed such three applications, should have examined and considered the same. This was not done. Instead of neutrally examining the issue, a Show Cause Notice was issued as to why the license should not be revoked. (k) A simple and sonorous perusal of the whole situation shows that, had the renewal applications dated 13.06.2001, filed by the CHA was read with their letter dated 24.07.2001, the entire correspondence made by the ....