Page 100 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

10 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
by the Board in the aforesaid letter and therefore the Assessee was entitled for
refund.
12. The said Judgment in our understanding, was on all fours with the
facts of the present case. But the Learned Tribunal preferred to follow only Tri-
bunal’s earlier view in the case of Ion Exchange (supra) instead of a High Court
decision. The Learned Tribunal, the highest Appellate forum under the Act chose
to lean in favour of the Revenue just for the sake of it. The very hope of Assessee
to get a fair justice apart from the typical pro-revenue approach of the Revenue
Authorities was also belied by the Learned Tribunal in the present case, totally
ignoring the total ad hoc exemption for the specific quantity including the pur-
pose thereof and the payment thereof could be very well treated as payment
made ‘under protest’ by Assessee. The approach taken by the Learned Tribunal
was least expected. We need not say anything more on this.
13. We are therefore of the clear opinion that the present Writ Petition
filed by Assessee Steel Authority of India Ltd., deserves to be allowed by setting
aside the order passed by the Learned Tribunal, as well as that of the authorities
below Tribunal denying the refund to the Assessee.
14. Accordingly, the order dated 22-9-2004, passed by the Tribunal and
those of Authorities below also are set aside. We direct the Assessing Authority
to refund the entire eligible amount with interest according to law.
15. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
_______
2020 (373) E.L.T. 10 (Cal.)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Sanjib Banerjee and Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, JJ.
COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (AIRPORT & ADMIN.)
Versus
EXPRESS CLEARING AGENCY
A.P.O. No. 217 of 2019, G.A. Nos. 812-813 of 2018 with W.P. No. 646 of 2017,
decided on 5-3-2020
Customs House Agent - Suspension of - Order based on adjudication
order as against importer and agent in respect of classification of goods - Ad-
judication order set aside - Prejudice caused by adjudication order wiped clean
as against the agent - No reasonable authority could have suspended licence of
agent or instituted proceedings therefor without Appellate order being chal-
lenged or without first having such order annulled - Entire issue resolved at
Tribunal’s level - Order of single judge setting aside suspension order not to
be interfered with - Appeal dismissed with costs - Regulation 20 of Customs
House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. [paras 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee and Amitabrata Ray,
Advocates, for the Appellant.
S/Shri Arijit Chakrabarti, Prabir Bera and Nilotpal
Chowdhury, Advocates, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - The Court : In view of the good grounds shown, the delay of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  100