Page 176 - ELT_1st July 2020_Vol 373_Part 1

86 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
2016 : 2016 (341) E.L.T. 586 (Mad.) and would make submissions by relying upon
following paragraphs of the said Judgment :
“33. Renewal of licence is as good as granting a new licence, granted un-
der the provisions of an Act. It has the effect of continuation of licence al-
ready granted. In Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported
in MANU/SC/0116/1997 : (1997) 1 SCC 650, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
considered a case for renewal of licence, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
and held that renewal of licence means a new licence, granted by way of
renewal. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that while considering an applica-
tion for renewal, all the conditions required to be complied with, under the
statutory provisions, rules or regulations, as the case may be, for grant of
fresh licence and any other conditions, imposing performance of the condi-
tions of licencee, have to be complied with. Procedure set out in CHALR,
2004, does not provide for any adjudication, either for grant of fresh licence
or renewal.
34. In the case on hand, while considering the renewal application, the li-
cencing authority has acted as an adjudicating authority. The need, accord-
ing to him, was, whether the licencee, who had not renewed the licence, is-
sued at Vizag, is entitled to get the licence issued by the Chennai Commis-
sionerate, renewed? If there was any such pre-condition, in our view, he
should be answered the issue administratively, but in the case on hand, the
licencing authority, seemed to have taken a decision that the abovesaid
question requires adjudication. In the light of Gajraj Singh’s case (cited su-
pra), it is our considered opinion that adjudication is not required, while
considering a renewal application. Grant or renewal of licence, is adminis-
trative in nature. Scheme of Regulations, 1984 or 2004, as the case may be,
does not envisage an adjudicatory process. If the argument of the appellant
is accepted, then, even granting licence should be held as adjudicatory,
which is not the intent.
35. Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides for an appeal. Bare
reading of the abovesaid Section may indicate that any decision or order
passed by the adjudicating authority, can be appealed to the Tribunal. The
Regulations dealing with grant of licence for renewal should be harmoni-
ously read with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and should be giv-
en the effect, in conformity with the legislative intent.
36. Provisions of the Customs Act, cannot be read in isolation and the
same have to be read harmoniously with the Regulations framed thereun-
der. Thus, on the principle of harmonious construction and going through
the entire Regulations, we are of the considered view that an order, reject-
ing an application for renewal, is administrative in nature.
37. Perusal of the order of CESTAT, Chennai, dated 14-7-2009, shows that
by following the orders, extracted supra, the Tribunal has held that the ap-
peal filed against the order, on the application to renew the licence issued to
the Customs House Agent, under the CHALR, 1984 or 2004, as the case may
be, is not maintainable. In the light of our discussion and decisions, stated
supra, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Ac-
cordingly, we answer the substantial questions of law, as against the Reve-
nue. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Conse-
quently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.”
18. By relying upon the aforesaid decision and by making the aforesaid
submissions, the Learned Counsel for the respondent/licensee would further
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st July 2020  176