JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of this appeal. 2. This appeal is filed by the custom house agent (in short CHA) whose renewal application has been rejected by the department. He had challenged the order of the Department before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT'). His appeal was also dismissed. We frame the following substantial question of law for our consideration. "Whether the CESTAT was right in law in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs rejecting the application of the appellant for renewal of the license." 3. Brief facts are as under. 4. The appellant was granted license as a CHA after following due procedure. It appears that a show cause notice was issued to him on 16.03.2015 pointing out that in relation to certain clearances during the year 2014, there were certain irregularities. It was alleged that in the process the appellant as CHA failed to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and failed to bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. He also failed to verify the antecedents and correctness of the importer. He was called upon the show cause why his CHA license not be forfeited and penalty in terms of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (in short 'Regulations of 2013') be not imposed. 5. The appellant replied to the show cause notice and opposed the proposals. The Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur passed order on 05.06.2015 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant but refused to revoke his license. In the meantime, till this order was passed, license of the appellant remained suspended for a period of about 7 months. After the said order was passed the suspension stood revoked and he continued to discharge his duties as CHA for about three years when the question of renewal of the license arose. In terms of the Regulations of 2013 he applied for such renewal. In response to his application the competent authority issued a show cause notice dated 31.05.2018 and called upon him to show cause why the application be not rejected on the following grounds. In terms of the Regulations of 2013 he applied for such renewal. In response to his application the competent authority issued a show cause notice dated 31.05.2018 and called upon him to show cause why the application be not rejected on the following grounds. "Whereas under the circumstances, application for renewal of Customs Broker License No. 1/CHAL/03 filed by the said Customs Broker appears liable for rejection under Regulation 9(2) of CBLR, 2018 in as much as instance of complaint of misconduct stand proved in terms of said Order-in-Original No. JOD-CUSTM-PRV-COMMR. 08/2015 dated 5.06.2015." 6. The appellant raised objections to the proposal of not renewing the license. His main ground was that for the alleged irregularity he has already been adequately punished when the Commissioner imposed the penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, his license was also suspended for a period of about 7 months. Only on this ground his application for renewal of the license cannot be rejected. Ignoring such objections of the appellant, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order dated 11.06.2018 and refused to renew the license. Referring to Regulation 9(2) of the said Regulations of 2013 he gave following reasons for passing the impugned order. "I do not find merit in the noticee's contention that since the earlier case was adequately adjudged by the then adjudication authority and it was found not fit for revocation, hence, the renewal cannot be denied now. As already mentioned above penalising for any offence and renewal/non renewal are different proceedings under CBLR 2013 as well as CBLR 2018 which are pari materia similar. I am also of considered view that the condition absence of instances of any complaints of misconduct is much wider in scope and is of preventive in nature rather than punitive." 7. The appellant challenged the said order of the Commissioner before the CESTAT. CESTAT passed an order which was pronounced in the open Court on 05.03.2019 in which the two member bench of the tribunal had decided to dismiss the appeal of the appellant. However, in paragraph 12 of the order which was added after the decision was pronounced, the tribunal recorded that subsequently an order of coordinate bench of the tribunal was brought to their notice which takes a different view. The two members bench of the tribunal therefore directed registry to place the copy of the order on record and list the matter for rehearing. The two members bench of the tribunal therefore directed registry to place the copy of the order on record and list the matter for rehearing. The portion of this order reads as under:- "This order was pronounced and dictated in open court itself, but before it could be signed by any of the Member preceding the Bench, another order of the coordinate Bench has come to our notice involving the same issue i.e. the Final Order No. 53242/2018 in Appeal No. C/51178/2018 as was decided on 6.11.2018 by the Bench of Hon'ble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) and Hon'ble Shri Bijay Kumar, Member (Technical), wherein it has been held that the fact that the Adjudicating Authority below has set aside the suspension of the license while finally adjudicating a Show Cause Notice alleging violation of obligations on part of CHA, the same cannot be a ground for being considered at the time when the said CHA applies for renewal of the said licence. The said order has been brought to the notice by learned Member (Technical) being the common Member for both the orders. In the given circumstances, this amounts to apparent contradiction in findings of two coordinate Benches and the situation may warrant the issue to be referred to Hon'ble Larger Bench. However, prior the registry is directed to place on record copy of the said order and to list the matter for re-hearing so as to bring to their notice, the aforesaid order and arguments if any. Fresh notice to the parties be given for the next date of hearing." 8. The case was fixed for rehearing before the tribunal. The tribunal passed fresh order on the appeal of the appellant on 08.01.2020 and dismissed the same primarily on the ground that once an order is pronounced in the open court, the same becomes part of the record and that there is no reason to recall the earlier order dated 05.03.2019. The appellant has thereupon approached this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sehban Naqvi submitted that another bench of the tribunal had taken a different view. In the present case the tribunal has taken a contradictory stand which is not permissible in law. On merit, he submitted that the appellant was already visited with the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for the irregularity detected by the Department. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Sehban Naqvi submitted that another bench of the tribunal had taken a different view. In the present case the tribunal has taken a contradictory stand which is not permissible in law. On merit, he submitted that the appellant was already visited with the penalty of Rs. 25,000/- for the irregularity detected by the Department. His license was also suspended for a period of 7 months. After the license was restored he worked for another period of 3 years without any blemish. Other than the isolated instance, there was no other defect ever pointed out in the working of the appellant as a CHA. Non renewal of the license would prevent the appellant from carrying out his business permanently. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Department submitted that Regulation 9(2) of the said Regulations of 2013 is wide enough and the Commissioner has in exercise of discretionary powers decided not to renew the license on account of conduct of the appellant. The orders passed by the tribunal are therefore valid. 11. The facts of the case are rather simple though somewhat unusual. The respondents have not disputed that the sole instance of aberration in the working of the appellant as CHA led to the Commissioner passing an order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Regulation 22 of Regulations of 2013. He found that the irregularity did not warrant revocation of the license itself. Upon this order being passed, the suspension of the license of the appellant stood revoked. He worked as a CHA without any further complaint for a period of three years when he had applied for renewal of the license. It is also not in dispute that such renewal was opposed only on the ground that he was involved in irregularity and for which penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed. He contended that once having been penalized for his actions, non-renewal of the license would amount to double jeopardy. The Commissioner rejected his ground the tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner. 12. Whatever be the irregularity at the end of the tribunal in first pronouncing the order dismissing the appeal and thereafter sending it for rehearing, surely the department cannot capitalize on the same. The Commissioner rejected his ground the tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner. 12. Whatever be the irregularity at the end of the tribunal in first pronouncing the order dismissing the appeal and thereafter sending it for rehearing, surely the department cannot capitalize on the same. In substance in the first order which was pronounced but not signed and a subsequent order which confirmed the previous order the appeal of the appellant stood dismissed. We are therefore called upon to decide the correctness of the view of the Commissioner as confirmed by the tribunal. In this context we find that the decision of the Commissioner to refuse renewal of the license of the appellant was wholly unjustified. Regulation 3 of the said Regulations of 2013 provides that no person shall carry on business as a Customs Broker unless he holds a license granted under the regulations. Application for license has to be made as provided in Regulation 4. Regulation 5 provides the conditions to be fulfilled for grant of license. Regulation 9 pertains to period of validity of license. Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 9 provides that a license granted shall be valid for a period of 10 years from the date issuance and would be renewed from time to time in accordance with the procedure specified in sub-regulation (2). Sub-regulation (2) of Regulations of 2013 which is of importance reads as under:- "The Commissioner of Customs may, on an application made by the licensee before the expiry of the validity of the licence under sub-regulation (1), renew the licence for a further period of ten years from the date of expiration, if the performance of the licensee is found to be satisfactory with reference, inter alia, to the obligations specified in this regulation including the absence of instances of any complaints of misconduct." 13. Under this sub-regulation thus renewal of license can be granted if the performance of the licensee is found to be satisfactory with respect inter-alia to obligations specified in the regulation including the absence of instances of any complaints of misconduct. The power for grant of renewal of extension is thus quite wide. The request for renewal would be considered on the parameter of the performance of the licensee if found satisfactory and there being absence of instance of any complaint of misconduct. The power for grant of renewal of extension is thus quite wide. The request for renewal would be considered on the parameter of the performance of the licensee if found satisfactory and there being absence of instance of any complaint of misconduct. However to refuse renewal of the license only on the ground of one isolated incident of irregularity for which the competent authority found that appropriate punishment was imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, would be wholly unjustified and impermissible. This is not to suggest that once an order of penalty is imposed, it looses all its significance insofar as the question of renewal of license is concerned. Under Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 9 not only penalty but even instance of any complaint of misconduct would be relevant. Under the circumstances if there are multiple instances of complaints of misconduct of a Custom House Broker, the renewal of license may be refused. However a mere isolated instance of irregularity which was found to be no more serious than to impose penalty of Rs. 25,000/-, cannot be the ground for refusal to grant renewal. Non-renewal of a license would prevent the appellant from carrying on the business permanently. In absence of allegations of any other complaint the isolated instance of the nature noted above, cannot be the sole ground for refusal to grant renewal. 14. Under the circumstances we find that the Commissioner of Customs as well as the Tribunal committed serious error. The question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the department. Impugned orders are set aside. 15. Appeal disposed of accordingly.