JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant (Revenue) has filed the present appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter `the Act') impugning an order dated 26.04.2019 (Final Order No. C/A/50592/2019-CU, hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereafter `the Tribunal') in Service Tax Appeal No. C/50490/2019.

2. The respondent (M/s R.P. Cargo Handling Services) had filed the aforementioned appeal before the learned Tribunal impugning the order-in-original dated 04.02.2019, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General) (hereafter `the Commissioner'). In terms of the said order dated 04.02.2019, the Commissioner had revoked the respondent's Customs Broker License (CB License No. R-59/DEL/CUS/2016 - hereafter `the CB License'); directing forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-; and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the respondent.

3. The question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the learned Tribunal was correct in holding that a show cause notice under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (hereafter `the CBLR') is required to be received by the customs broker within a period of ninety days of the receipt of the offence report and it is not sufficient that the notice is sent within the said period of ninety days.

4. The aforesaid question arises in the following context.

4.1. The respondent is a customs broker and at the material time was holding the CB License, which was valid up to 01.09.2026. The said license was issued under Regulation 7 of the CBLR.

4.2. It is alleged that certain goods, which were stored in custom bonded warehouses, were diverted to the domestic market without payment of customs duty. Further, forged and fabricated documents were prepared to show re-export of the warehoused goods. For the said purposes, four fictitious firms were created and their IECs were obtained.

4.3. It was found by the Commissioner that the respondent firm had not physically verified the premises of the firms - which were found to be fictitious - but had acted on the KYC documents in respect of the firms received from one, Sh. Sanjeev Maggu (stated to be the mastermind of the fraud), without verifying his antecedents.

4.4. The investigation report dated 10.05.2018 - on the basis of which the proceedings were initiated against the respondent firm - was received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereafter `the DRI') in the office of the Commissioner on 18.05.2018. It appeared that the respondent was also involved in the said activity of importing goods and diverting them from public bonded warehouses.

4.5. The show cause notice dated 10.08.2018 was issued to the respondent alleging that he had failed to perform various obligations under the CBLR and further proposing forfeiture of the security and imposition of penalty. Thereafter, an inquiry officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry.

4.6. The inquiry officer submitted a report dated 06.11.2018 finding no fault with the respondent. The Commissioner did not agree with the report submitted by the inquiry officer and entered a `disagreement note' dated 30.11.2018. Thereafter, the respondent was afforded an opportunity of being heard. On 30.01.2019, the respondent also filed its written submissions contesting the allegations.

4.7. The Commissioner did not accept the respondent's contention and passed an order-in-original dated 04.02.2019, revoking the respondent's CB license, forfeiting the security deposit of .5,00,000/- as well as imposing a penalty of .50,000/-.

4.8. The respondent appealed the said order dated 04.02.2019 before the learned Tribunal, inter alia, contending that it had received the show cause notice on 28.08.2018, which was beyond the period of ninety days from the receipt of the offence report. Thus, in terms of Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, the proceeding initiated under Section 20 of the CBLR w