9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imposing penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Since, on investigation, DEPB licences purportedly issued by the Jt. DGFT, New Delhi, to M/s. Million Dollars Inc., M/s. Abhiman Exports, M/s. Meghna Falcons and M/s. R.K. Corporation, were found to be forged, show cause notices were issued to the respondents, who imported Brass Scrap Honey on the strength of these licences and the Release Advices (RA) were issued against such licensees. 3. As recorded in the Orders-in-Original, the respondents' request for supply of documents was accepted to and all the relied upon documents were sent to them. It is specifically recorded in the Orders-in-Original that the vital evidence in the form of letter dated 20th July, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition under the Notification No. 34/97 remained unfulfilled. The appeal preferred against the said decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta by a decision reported in 2005 (184) E.L.T. 339 (Cal.). In para 4 of its decision, the Hon'ble High Court has held as under : "......In this case, the document itself having been found to be forged whether there was collusion or fraud on the part of the appellant in the issue of the DEPB licences/scrips become absolutely immaterial and irrelevant since no credit can be derived from a forged DEPB. The credit is made available on the strength of a valid DEPB. If the DEPB is forged, then the same is non est and therefore, there is no valid DEPB. As such no credit can b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C/127/03) was imposed under Section 112 of the Act; and simultaneously at Item No. 6, the importer is again imposed a penalty of the same amount under Section 112 of the Act. Similarly, in order-in-original, which is the subject matter of Appeal No. C/128/03, a penalty of Rs. 18,50,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the goods were not available for confiscation and again a penalty of Rs. 7,31,704/- was imposed on the importer under Section 112 of the Act at Item No. 6 of that order. Likewise, in order-in-original, which is the subject matter of Appeal No. C/129/03, a penalty of Rs. 18,50,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the goods were not available for confiscation and again a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
