Thaparsons K.V. Clearing Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944370
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided OnMar-11-2010
Case Number APPEAL NO. C/67/07  Mum (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 03-CUS-TECH/2006/COMMR dated 20
Judge THE HONOURABLE MR. B.S.V. MURTHY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) & THE HONOURABLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
AppellantThaparsons K.V. Clearing
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur
Advocates:Written submission for Appellant. Shri Manish Mohan, SDR for Respondents.
Excerpt:
per : ashok jindal this appeal filed by the cha is against the revocation of cha licence by the commissioner. the facts of the case are that the appellant was granted license no. pmt/cha/3/99/ngp dated 26.03.1999 under rule 10(1) of the chalr, 1984. the validity of the said license was five years i.e. upto 25.03.2004. the appellant applied for renewal of his license on 31.12.2003 but the same was revoked holding that the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions laid down under regulation 11(2)(a) of the chalr 2004. aggrieved by the same the appellant is before us. the appellant has filed a written submission in support of his appeal and the same has been taken on record. 2. heard learned sdr. the learned sdr reiterate the impugned order. 3. we have gone through the provisions of chalr 2004 and find that as per the clarifications issued by the board in circular no. 42/2004-cus. dated 10.06.2004, the license issued under regulation 10(1) of chalr 1984 would be deemed to be licenses issued under regulation 9(1) of the chalr 2004. as per chalr 1984 licenses are to be renewed for 10 years and the commissioner while disposing of the application for renewal, failed to consider the clarification dated 10.06.2004 issued by the board and revoked the license of the appellant. in our opinion, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the commissioner to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the clarification issued by the board in circular no. 42/2004-cus dated 10.06.2004. accordingly, we remand back the matter to the commissioner to decide the matter afresh in view of the above observation. 4. accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
Judgment:

Per : Ashok Jindal

This appeal filed by the CHA is against the revocation of CHA licence by the Commissioner. The facts of the case are that the appellant was granted License No. PMT/CHA/3/99/NGP dated 26.03.1999 under Rule 10(1) of the CHALR, 1984. The validity of the said license was five years i.e. upto 25.03.2004. The appellant applied for renewal of his license on 31.12.2003 but the same was revoked holding that the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions laid down under Regulation 11(2)(a) of the CHALR 2004. Aggrieved by the same the appellant is before us. The appellant has filed a written submission in support of his appeal and the same has been taken on record.

2. Heard learned SDR. The learned SDR reiterate the impugned order.

3. We have gone through the provisions of CHALR 2004 and find that as per the clarifications issued by the Board in Circular No. 42/2004-Cus. dated 10.06.2004, the license issued under Regulation 10(1) of CHALR 1984 would be deemed to be licenses issued under Regulation 9(1) of the CHALR 2004. As per CHALR 1984 licenses are to be renewed for 10 years and the Commissioner while disposing of the application for renewal, failed to consider the clarification dated 10.06.2004 issued by the Board and revoked the license of the appellant. In our opinion, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the Commissioner to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the clarification issued by the Board in Circular No. 42/2004-Cus dated 10.06.2004. Accordingly, we remand back the matter to the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh in view of the above observation.

4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.