Page 11 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

2020 ] INDEX - 1st July, 2020 ix
Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - HELD : Board
while making regulation, under Section 146(2) ibid clarified that certain
obligations ought to be scrupulously followed or to be fulfilled by
licensee as enumerated under Regulation 13 ibid and if any violation
noticed, even though licence not revoked in between, at time of renewal,
same to have bearing and such licensee would not be or may not be
eligible to get renewal - Order passed under Regulation 22(7) ibid only
based on adjudication therefore same can only be construed as
adjudicative order and not as administrative order - Such orders can be
very well fit in situation mentioned under impugned Section 129A ibid
where Sections 129A(1)(a) to 129A(d) ibid making it clear that, some
specific orders as well as order passed by adjudicating authority are
appealable to CESTAT - Therefore present order may very well be
appealed by aggrieved party - Though words “any Customs House
Agent aggrieved by any decision or order” employed in Regulation 22(8)
ibid no prohibition specifically or expressly made prohibiting Revenue
from preferring any appeal against any order passed under sub-
regulation 7 of Regulation 22 ibid - Order impugned set aside and matter
is remitted back to CESTAT for deciding issue on merits - Substantial
Question of Law raised answered in favour of Revenue and against
Licensee/Respondent - Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 — Commissioner
of Customs, Chennai v. Freight Field (Madras) Pvt. Ltd. (Mad.) ................. 78
Appeal pending, meanwhile destruction of confiscated drugs sustainable as
drugs had expired - See under DESTRUCTION .................. 20
Appeal to CESTAT - Bias - Apprehension of Bias by Members (Technical) -
Constitution of new Bench - Petitioner’s apprehension of Bias is well-
founded in view of fact that present touring Member (Technical) of
Bengaluru Bench Shri Bijay Kumar was a party in writ proceedings filed
by petitioner’s counsel in Apex Court against appointment of Members
(Technical) - Law of equity and interest of justice demand that matter be
heard by a Bench consisting of some other Member (T), to which UOI has
no objection - Accordingly, directed that a different touring Member
(Technical), other than members Shri C.I. Mahar, Sanjeev Sreevastava
and Sri P. Venkata Subba Roa who were party to aforesaid writ
proceedings, be assigned for hearing matter before Bengaluru CESTAT
Bench - Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962 - Article 226 of Constitution of
India — Kishin S. Loungani v. Union of India (Ker.)..................... 24
— Transfer from one Bench to another - Powers of High Court - No power
with High Court to order transfer of a case from Bengalure Bench to
Mumbai Bench - Plea withdrawn by petitioner for filing appropriate
application before CESTAT - Section 129C(6) of Customs Act, 1962 -
Article 226 of Constitution of India — Kishin S. Loungani v. Union of India (Ker.) .... 24
Appealable order - All orders including self-assessment appealable - See
under APPEAL ................................... 118
Appellate Tribunal - Hierarchy - Bench System - Section 129C of Customs
Act, 1962 merely distinguishes single member and Division Benches but
not provides for difference in status of the two types of Benches so as to
accord hierarchical superiority to Division Bench unlike constitutional
Courts which distinguish a single judge Bench from a Division Bench
with conferment of appellate jurisdiction on the latter - Single member
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  11