CCEX Vs. METAL RECYCLING INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri P.K. Katiyar, learned SDR for the applicant Commissioner. The respondents are absent despite notice and despite grant of adjournment. Page 0292 There is also no request for adjournment. The impugned order -in -original has been passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Division -I, Surat -I suspending the warehousing licence of the respondents under Sub -section 3 of Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order -in -appeal has been passed by the lower appellate authority setting aside the order -in -original. He has noted in paragraph 2 of the order that the impugned licence has been suspended under the provisions of Section 58(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 in the order -in -original. However, in the penultimate paragraph of the order, the lower appellate authority has observed that the licence has been cancelled and he has held that for such cancellation a reasonable opportunity of hearing is required to be given under the proviso to Section 58(2)(b).

(2.) IT is very clear that the lower appellate authority is totally confused as to whether the licence has been suspended or cancelled. He has also invoked the provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 relating to cancellation of the licence, whereas the licence has been only suspended under the impugned order -in -original, which he has himself noted in paragraph 2 of the order -in -appeal. It goes without showing that the departmental appellate authorities should carefully read the orders challenged before them and should also themselves refer to the correct provisions of law so that such glaring mistakes do not recur. In view of the fact that the impugned licence has merely been suspended under Section 58(3), application of the provisions of Section 58(2) is not appropriate.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , the impugned order -in -appeal is set aside and order -in -original is restored. The department's appeal is allowed.