Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Varma and Sons

Commissioner of Customs vs Varma and Sons

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Aug 28, 2000
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19020

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Varma and Sons

Legal References

Reported In
(2000)(122)ELT99Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....order impugned before the tribunal, the commissioner had suspended the licence of the cha in terms of regulation 21(2) of the cha licensing regulations, 1984. in this order of the tribunal, the tribunal examined a number of judgments in view of the fact that there was no specific requirement for the commissioner to issue a notice before taking such action under regulation 21(2). the tribunal, however, observed that this regulation did not waive the application of regulation 23. the tribunal also relied upon the supreme court judgment in the case of east india commercial co. ltd. [1983 (13) e.l.t. 1342 (s.c.)]. in this judgment, it is laid down that even if the statute did not provide for a show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the quasi judicial authority to disclose the grounds on which the action was proposed to be taken against the concerned person. in the light of the examination of the sub-regulation 21(2) and 23, the tribunal has remanded the proceedings.2. against this decision, the present application has been filed by the revenue. the question raised for reference reads as follows "whether or not it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice to cha before suspension of licence under regulation 21(2) of custom house agents licensing regulations 1984 in the absence of a specific provision for the same." 3. in the light of the discussions made by the tribunal in the cited order, what was required of the ld. applicant commissioner was to cite certain judgments which would show that the tribunal's conclusion was not well founded. an application seeking reference to high court is a very serious preposition. first of all, it has to be decided that there is a substantial question of law arising out of the impugned judgment.it cannot be merely a point of law nor a minor question referable. this has been held by the gauhati high court. where the tribunal cites an order of the supreme court in arriving at a decision, the job of the applicant commissioner becomes.....

Full Judgment

1. The Tribunal vide order No. 3799/98/WRB dated 8-10-1998 C.I allowed the appeal filed by the CHA and remanded the proceedings back to the jurisdictional Commissioner. Vide the order impugned before the Tribunal, the Commissioner had suspended the licence of the CHA in terms of Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. In this order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal examined a number of judgments in view of the fact that there was no specific requirement for the Commissioner to issue a notice before taking such action under Regulation 21(2). The Tribunal, however, observed that this Regulation did not waive the application of Regulation 23. The Tribunal also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. [1983 (13) E.L.T. 1342 (S.C.)]. In this judgment, it is laid down that even if the statute did not provide for a show cause notice, it was incumbent upon the quasi judicial authority to disclose the grounds on which the action was proposed to be taken against the concerned person. In the light of the examination of the Sub-regulation 21(2) and 23, the Tribunal has remanded the proceedings.

2. Against this decision, the present application has been filed by the Revenue. The question raised for reference reads as follows "Whether or not it is mandatory to issue a show cause notice to CHA before suspension of licence under Regulation 21(2) of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations 1984 in the absence of a specific provision for the same." 3. In the light of the discussions made by the Tribunal in the cited order, what was required of the ld. applicant Commissioner was to cite certain judgments which would show that the Tribunal's conclusion was not well founded. An application seeking reference to High Court is a very serious preposition. First of all, it has to be decided that there is a substantial question of law arising out of the impugned judgment.

It cannot be merely a point of law nor a minor question referable. This has been held by the Gauhati High Court. Where the Tribunal cites an order of the Supreme Court in arriving at a decision, the job of the applicant Commissioner becomes even more onerous.

4. We find that the ld. Commissioner took such difficult task in a light manner. The question raised remains in a vacuum in the absence of justification as to why it should be referred to the Hon'ble High Court. We do not consider it necessary to refer. The Reference application is dismissed.

5. A copy of this order should be marked to Chief Commissioner of Customs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial