2011 (5) TMI 677 - CESTAT, MUMBAI

DEPB - Fraud - held that:- the original allottees of the DEPBs had not earned any "credit" of duty in the absence of exports and, therefore, the appellant who purchased those DEPBs did not acquire any "credit", let alone sufficient, for duty-free clearance of their imports in terms of Notification 34/97-Cus. when strictly construed. It is trite law that an Exemption Notification requires to be strictly interpreted (vide Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, Sterlite Industries etc.) and the benefit of any doubt has to be given to the Revenue (vide Novopan India). Therefore, we hold that the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of the Notification.

It was open to the Department to demand duty from the appellant under Section 28 of the Customs Act without recourse to any other procedure of revision of assessment.

Issuance of consolidated show cause notice against 19 SCN - period of limitation - held that:- we have to accept the contention of the ld. JCDR that the show-cause notice dt. 05-10-2001 was issued in continuation of the earlier set of 19 show-cause notices and that the demand of duty was within the normal period of limitation. In our view, the best evidence in support of this contention is the fact that all the show-cause notices were adjudicated upon by the Commissioner in a single proceeding culminating in the impugned order. - Decided against the assessee.

Interest u/s 28AB - held that:- the assessee has to pay interest on the duty amount under sub-section (1) of Section 28AB as amended. However, no interest is leviable for any period prior to 11-05-2001 as sub-section (2) of Section 28AB forbids levy for past period.

Penalty u/s 114A - held that:- the show-cause notices had not alleged collusion, wilful misstatement of facts or suppression of facts against the appellant. Hence imposition of the penalty on them is beyond the scope of the show-cause notices.