TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The challenge made against the impugned order is mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. According to the petitioner, the respondent is not entitled to pass the impugned prohibition order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by putting them on notice. In support of such contention a Division Bench decision of this Court made in Writ Appeal (MD) No.359 of 2016 dated 03.03.2016, reported in 2016 (336) ELT 437 (Commissioner of Customs, Thoothukudi v. Daniel and Samuel Logistics P.Ltd.,) is relied on. 4. The respondent has filed a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed the order of the Writ Court and dismiss the Writ Appeal. The Division Bench has dealt with various decisions and finally came to the conclusion that the order of the Writ Court need not be interfered with. Para No. 15 to 20 of the Division Bench order reads as follows: 15. In a case on hand, the Commissioner of Customs, in exercise of power under Section 23 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 has issued a total prohibition order prohibiting M/s. Daniel & Samuel Logistics Pvt. Ltd., from working in any section of the Customs Commissionerate and Customs station under the jurisdiction of Chennai Customs Zone, with immediate effect. He has no power to prohibit a Customs Broker from working in a section or all sections,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cle 226 and 227. A High Court may consider the decision of other High Courts on a point of law, but under the Constitutional scheme, each High Court has independent power to take a decision on any question of law. 18. Inasmuch as Mr.R.Aravindan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the decision of the Rajasthan High Court reported in 2015 (320) E.L.T. 241 (Raj.) (cited supra) should be applied to the instant case, we are of the considered view that the said decision can only be of persuasive value, and not binding on us. 19. Looking at from any angle on the ground urged in this appeal, we are not inclined to accept the challenge made to the order passed by the Writ Court, which has rightly set aside ....