RAM S. DEVAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the application made by the appellant/assessee for early hearing of the appeal, is the question raised in this appeal. The appellant has been carrying on business as Customs House Agent ('CHA') at Mumbai since last 3-4 years in the name of M/s. Global Trade Links. Though the CHA licence was issued by the authorities at Goa, the appellant/assessee has been carrying on business at Mumbai after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority.

(2.) Pursuant to an order passed on 23-12-2009 the CHA Licence granted to the assessee was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and by an order dated 21-9-2010 the suspension was continued pending inquiry against the CHA under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. Challenging the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed an appeal before the CESTAT and the same is pending. In the said appeal, the appellant took out an application seeking early hearing of the appeal. However, the said application was rejected by the CESTAT by its order dated 18-2-2011 mainly on the ground that the suspension order passed at Mumbai does not preclude the assessee from carrying on business at Goa from where the CHA licence was granted. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee.

(3.) The only question to be considered in this appeal is - whether the CESTAT was justified in declining to hear appeal expeditiously merely because the suspension order passed at Mumbai does not preclude the assessee from carrying on its business at Goa. Admittedly, the assessee has been carrying on CHA business at Mumbai after obtaining necessary permission for the last several years, even though the licence was granted by the authorities at Goa, The fact that the assessee could carry on business at Goa cannot be a ground to deny early hearing especially when the assessee has been in fact carrying on business at Mumbai till the suspension was issued on 23-12-2009. As the assessee has been deprived of his right to carry on his business at Mumbai since 23-12-2009, it was just and proper for the Tribunal to allow the application for early hearing of the Appeal.