AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 640
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Bench had differed on the point of upholding the decision of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding non-acceptance of the Enquiry Report. 3. Without meaning any disrespect to the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench, and for the sake of convenience the Hon'ble Judge delivering the first view in the judgement and order dated June 8, 2023 is referred to as the Hon'ble First Judge while the Hon'ble Judge delivering the second view is referred to as the Hon'ble Second Judge. 4. The respondent herein as Customs Broker had filed a bill of export on January 2, 2014 for clearance with the customs authorities. The customs authorities had found that the respondent herein, as Customs Broker, to be in connivance with the e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y a letter dated December 21, 2015. 7. By an order dated January 6, 2016, WP No. 1076 of 2015 had been disposed of by directing the respondent to approach the Tribunal. The respondent had preferred another writ petition being WP No. 364 of 2016 challenging the order of suspension which was disposed of by an order dated April 29, 2016 by granting opportunity to the respondent to file a reply to the Show Cause Notice dated July 31, 2015 within a week and to conclude the revocation proceedings within 3 months of the receipt of the reply to the show cause notice from the respondent. 8. The respondent had filed its reply to the show cause notice on May 10, 2016. Personal hearing for adjudication of the show cause notice had been granted to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to accept and consider the enquiry report and decide the matter on merits. The Hon'ble Second Judge has thereafter proceeded to reappreciate the facts and arrive at the same conclusion as that of the Hon'ble First Judge in upholding the impugned order under appeal. 12. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to a list of dates of the events happening in the matter leading up to the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. He has contended that, the Division Bench was unanimous with regard to the provisions of the Regulations of 2013 being directory in nature. He has contended that, the reference should be disposed of by holding that the time period specified in completing the enquiry and submitting the enquiry report ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Regulations of 2013 are mandatory. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to 2018 (362) ELT 947 (Cal) (Ota Falloons Forwarders Private Limited vs. Union of India), 2020 (373) ELT 323 (Cal) (Asian Freight vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration)), 2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom) (Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai vs. Unison Clearing Private Limited), 2019 (368) ELT 41 (Telengana) (Shasta Freight Services Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad), and 2022 (380) ELT 60 (Bom) (Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai vs. Srinivas Clearing and Shipping (I) Private Limited) and contended that, Bombay, Telangana and our High Court have held that, the timeline for completion of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that, the Tribunal has rejected the enquiry report or the order impugned before it in its entirety purely on the ground of the timeline prescribed under Regulation 20 (5) of the Regulations of 2013 being breached. 17. No doubt, the Adjudicating Authority, which would obviously include the Tribunal has the discretion to attach such weightage as is permissible in law to the enquiry report, albeit submitted in breach of the timeline prescribed under Regulation 20 (5) of the Regulations of 2013, in deciding on the quantum of punishment or the relief, to be imposed or granted, as the case may be. In the facts of the present case, the Hon'ble First Judge has held that....