SHARE

| Sep-07-2021

Order passed by the Commissioner cannot be set aside merely it was time barred

In the case of M/S Online Cargo v. Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 51120 OF 2020], the Hon’ble Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (“the CESTAT”) passed an interim order dated August 27, 2021 quashing the Customs Commissioner's Order dated September 10, 2020 by which the Customs Broker license has been revoked which was valid upto January 13, 2022.

M/S Online Cargo [“the Appellant”] flied this appeal against the Order of Commissioner of Customs [“the Respondent”] dated September 10, 2020 by which the Customs Broker license of the Appellant which was valid upto January 13, 2022 was revoked. Further, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs forfeited the security deposit and also imposed penalty on the ground.

The Appellant submitted that in view of the provisions of regulation 17(7) of The Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 [“2018 Regulations”], the order dated September 10, 2020 deserves to be set aside for the sole reason that it was passed after the expiry of ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs.

To which the Respondent contended that in view of the provisions of section 6 of The Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [“Taxation Act, 2020”] contained in Chapter V relating to “Relaxation of Time Limit under Certain Indirect Tax Laws”, the time period provided under regulation 17(7) stands extended upto September 30, 2020.

The issue examined in the present case was whether because of the provisions of section 6 of the Taxation Act 2020 relating to ‘Relaxation of the Time Limit under certain Indirect Tax Laws’, the time period stipulated under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations for passing an order within ninety days from the date of submissions of report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, stands extended upto September 30, 2020.

The Hon’ble CESTAT held that the contention of the appellant that in view of the provisions of regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations, the order dated September 10, 2020 passed by the Commissioner should be set aside, cannot be accepted merely for the reason that it was passed after the period of ninety days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. This is for the reason that in view of the provisions of section 6 of the 2020 Act, the period prescribed under regulation 17(7) of the 2018 Regulations stands extended upto September 30, 2020.

Online GST Course by Bimal Jain

Recorded: Certified Advanced GST Course

Course Details: Certificate of Participation will be Provided, Free GST Updates on E-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram for 1 Year, Background Material and PPT will be Provided on the downloadable basis, Total 21 Recorded Sessions (60 Hours), will be available for 120 hours or 60 Days whichever expires earlier.

For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/hxjl5Cu

Recorded: GST Course on Exports, Deemed Exports, SEZ, Imports, Merchandise Exports, Inverted Duty Structure (including Refunds)

Course Details: 6 Online Recorded Sessions of 2.30Hrs each with Background Material (BGM)

For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/pvw7mzl

For more details,
Call:
+91-8076563802 | E-mail: intern@a2ztaxcorp.com | Web: www.a2ztaxcorp.in

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.

Similar reads

Appellant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit to the date of refund

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of

Sep-07-2021

Read More

Waiver of pre-deposit is not tenable on account of financial inability

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view

Sep-07-2021

Read More

Excise duty cannot be demanded for clandestine removal based on third party evidence

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held

Sep-07-2021

Read More

Arbitrary valuation of goods not subjected to BIS specifications is invalid

The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods

Sep-07-2021

Read More

EOU not entitled to claim refund of TED on its own, may avail of the entitlements of DTA supplier specified in FTP

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export

Sep-07-2021

Read More