Case Details: Anax Air Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport and General), New Delhi (2025) 34 Centax 85 (Tri.-Del)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Justice Dilip Gupta, President & Shri P.V. Subba Rao, Member (T)
- Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Adv. for the Appellant
- Shri Sunil Kumar, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent
Facts of the Case
The applicant, a Customs Broker holding a valid licence under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, faced revocation proceedings alleging violation of Regulation 10(n) due to exporters not operating from their declared business premises and purportedly being ineligible for input tax credit (ITC) under GST. The applicant submitted that it was not responsible for verifying the admissibility of ITC, as such verification was beyond its locus standi or powers, and that IECs and GSTINs were issued by the respective Government departments. The applicant further contended that it had satisfied its obligations under Regulation 10(n) by verifying the identity of its clients and that physical verification of the client’s declared premises was not required. It was argued that any non-compliance or misinformation by the exporters, including moving to new premises without updating authorities, could not be imputed to the Customs Broker. The matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the applicant did not violate Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The Tribunal observed that the Customs Broker had discharged its duty by verifying the identity of the clients using GSTINs issued by CBIC and IECs issued by DGFT, which were reliable indicators of authenticity. It was noted that any subsequent movement of clients to new premises or incorrect actions by exporters, including wrongful GST registrations, were beyond the Customs Broker’s control. The Tribunal concluded that responsibility for verification of operational premises and correctness of Government-issued documents rested with the issuing authorities, not the Customs Broker. Consequently, the revocation proceedings against the applicant were dismissed.
List Of Cases Cited
- Baraskar Brothers v. Commissioner — 2009 (244) E.L.T. 562 (Tribunal) — Referred [Para 18]
- Kunal Travels (Cargo) v. Commissioner — 2017 (354) E.L.T. 447 (Del.) — Referred [Paras 29, 35]
- Millenium Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2017 (346) E.L.T. 471 (Tribunal) — Distinguished [Paras 35, 36, 37]
