Page 163 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] COMMR. OF CUS., (II) AIRPORT SPECIAL CARGO v. LYNX EXPRESS PVT. LTD. 697

no enquiry as contemplated in Courier Regulations, conducted - Accordingly,
no infirmity in Tribunal’s order setting aside revocation of Courier Licence -
Regulation 14 of Courier Import and Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998.
[2015 (315) E.L.T. 194 (Bom.) relied on]. [para 7]
Appeal dismissed
CASES CITED
Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Commissioner — 2015 (315) E.L.T. 194 (Bom.) — Relied on . [Para 7]
Principal Commissioner v. Bombino Express Pvt. Ltd.
— 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 52 (Bom.) — Relied on ................................................................................. [Para 6]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Pradeep Jetly with J.B. Mishra, for the Appel-
lant.
S/Shri Prakash Shah with Vinay Ansurkar with Jas
Sanghavi i/b Legal Solutions, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - P.C. : The appellant has challenged the Judgment and Order
dated 25 January, 2019 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Mumbai in Appeal No. C/87576 of 2016 [2019 (370) E.L.T. 796 (Tri.-
Mumbai)].
2. By this appeal, the appellant has raised following questions of law :
‘(i) Whether the CESTAT could entertain any appeal against an order
dated 26-10-2015 of the Principal Commissioner of Customs, APSC
which had already merged, after the prescribed process of repre-
sentative appeal, with the order of the Chief Commissioner of Cus-
toms, Mumbai Zone III dated 14-9-2016, especially when the appeal
against such order of the Chief Commissioner was voluntarily
withdrawn by the same appellant and no further remedy was
sought against such order?
(ii) Whether the CESTAT has jurisdiction to entertain any appeal
against an order of the Principal Commissioner under Regulations
14(1) of the Courier Import & Export (Clearance) Regulations, 1998,
if such order has already been represented to the Chief Commis-
sioner as prescribed under Regulation 14(2) and such representation
has been disposed by a speaking and reasoned order of such pre-
scribed Appellate Authority?
(iii) Without prejudice to the above grounds, whether the Hon’ble
CESTAT’s Order is legal and proper in its conclusion that no in-
quiry was conducted pursuant to suspension of the registration
when it is clearly detailed in the Order-in-Original dated 26-11-2015
that, the decision to grant no further license was being ordered with
attendant forfeiture and penalty based on the inquiry/investigation
conducted by issue of SCN dated 12-12-2014 as adjudicated by Or-
der-in-Original dated 26-10-2015?’
3. The respondent Lynx Express Private Limited was registered as an
Authorised Courier under the provisions of the Courier Import and Export
(Clearance) Regulations, 1998 (the ‘Regulations’). According to the appellant, the
officers of the Air Courier Cell and Air Intelligence Unit seized substantial quan-
tity of gold concealed in various packages. The scrutiny of the documents re-
vealed that the consignments were in the name of the respondent who had filed
CBE-IV for clearance of these consignments. Investigation was carried out by the
Air Intelligence Unit and, according to the appellant, various persons in the re-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  163