AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Ramasubramanian, J.—The Commissioner of Customs has come up with the above appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. Heard Mr. R. Aravindan, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. Saravanan, learned counsel for the first respondent.
The first respondent herein was a Customs House Agent. They were granted a licence under the Customs House Licensing Regulations, 2004. The licence was suspended by an order dated 12-9-2012.
Subsequently, a show cause notice for revocation of licence was issued on 6-12-2012. The show cause notice was challenged before this Court, in W.P. (MD) No. 16351 of 2012. The said writ petition was allowed on 4-1-2013, solely on the ground of limitation.
Therefore, challenging the order of suspension, dated 12-9-2012, the respondent filed a statutory appeal before CESTAT in Appeal No. C/S/266/12. The said appeal was allowed by CESTAT, by order dated 20-2-2013. Challenging the said order, the Commissioner of Customs is on appeal.
The entire basis of the order assailed in this appeal is the judgment rendered by this Court, to which one of us (VRSJ) is a party, in W.P.(MD) No. 16351 of 2012, dated 4-1-2013. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that the said decision in W.P. (MD) No. 16351 of 2012 is already on appeal in W.P. (MD) No. 260 of 2013 before this Court. In other words, the contention of the appellant is that the judgment rendered on 4-1-2013 by this Court has not attained finality.
But, the above contention on the part of the appellant can hardly be accepted. The respondent challenged the revocation of licence by way of a writ petition and the writ petition was allowed by this Court. That order is on appeal in a writ appeal.
The suspension order was challenged by the respondent before CESTAT. The CESTAT allowed the appeal by following the decision rendered in the writ petition on the ground that the action was time barred. CESTAT being a quasi-judicial authority, over which this Court has supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution, is bound by the order passed by this Court. The order impugned in the appeal shows that the CESTAT took note of the fact that there was no stay of the order passed in W.P. (MD) No. 16351 of 2012. The said order, though on appeal, is not under stay. Therefore, in all fairness, the appellant should actually treat the order of revocation of licence to be under cloud as on date, in view of the order passed in the writ petition. In such circumstances, we do not see any merits in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. However, the final outcome will be subject to the result of the writ appeal. No costs. Connected M.P. (MD) Nos. 1 & 2 of 2014 are also dismissed.