TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 683X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on Shri R.G.Avasthi and penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on Shri C.Pinto were imposed under Sec.112(a) of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant M/s. Apar Ltd. purchased 4 DEPB scrips through a broker namely Kirit V.Kamdar(now Dead). The appellant M/s. Apar Ltd. made import of goods under the DEPB scrips so purchased. The goods were assessed by giving benefit under the DEPB scrips. Thereafter, it was found that the DEPB scrips under which the duty benefit was claimed in respect of the imported goods were obtained by submitting forged documents such as bank realization certificate, shipping bills etc. The goods were seized and thereafter the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order confiscating the goods, demanding duty after denying the duty benefit and imposed the penalties. 5. The contention of the appellant is that the DEPB scrips were purchased from the market through a broker and the appellant company is a bona fide purchaser and the scrips were valid when the goods were imported and subsequent to the import of the goods, the same were cancelled. Hence demand of duty is not sustainable. It is submitted that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were obtained by submitting forged documents is to available to the importer, is now settled by the tribunal in the case of Friends Trading Company vs. CC, Amritsar reported in 2006(202)E.L.T. 611 (Tri-Del.) The importer filed appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana against the above decision and the same was dismissed reported as Friends Trading Co. vs. Union of India reported in 2010(254) E.L.T. 652( P & H). The Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "2 The asessee imported goods against DEPB Scrips without payment of duty. It was later found that DEPB Scrips were obtained by producing forged bank certificate of export and realization. The DEPB Scrips were cancelled by the competent authority. Accordingly, demand of duty was confirmed after notice. The assessee purchased DEPB Scrips from M/s. Vivek Impex Private Limited who purchased the same from M/s. Shyam International who had purchased the same from M/s. Parker Industries. The Commissioner of Customs held that any concession availed of on the basis of DEPB Scrips obtained by producing forged documents could not be retained. This view has been affirmed by the Tribunal. 3. We examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge of exemption. The Tribunal noticed that the firm with whom the appellant entered into the transaction was not traceable. The appellant itself had come to the conclusion that the documents were forged. In these circumstances, if further opportunity has been given to the appellant on its own asking and for its own benefit, we do not find any error in the course adopted by the Tribunal so as to give rise to substantial question of law sought to be raised." 4.We also made a? reference to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 and Commissioner of Customs v. Essar Oil Ltd. - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.) = (2004) 11 SCC 364 and judgments of this Court in Golden Tools International v. Joint DGFT, Ludhiana - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 213 and The Commissioner of Customs, Commissionerate, The Mall, Amritsar v. M/s. Parker Industries, Jalandhar - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 658. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order upholding demand of duty on goods in respect of which exemption had been availed of on the basis of DEPB scrips obtained against forged documents." 10. Against the decision of the Hon'ble Punj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... importer. Importer who steps into the shoes of seller of forged document does not stand on better footing and cannot be allowed to retain benefit illegally obtained. Taint attaching to the document on the basis of which benefit is taken is not washed of. Fraud or suppression continues if document is not genuine. Any other interpretation will defeat the intendment of the proviso to Section 28 and will enable fraud to be perpetuated without any remedy. Even if case of criminal liability or penalty may stand on different footing, purchaser or successor of fraudulently obtained DEPB stands in the same position as his predecessor. If the extended period of limitation could be invoked against the original holder of fraudulent or forged DEPB, the same could be invoked against successor or purchaser. The judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable. The matter is covered by view taken by this court earlier which has been followed by the tribunal. Thus, we are unable to hold that any substantial question of law arises". 13. As we find that the benefit under tainted DEPB scrips was claimed hence the goods were liable for confiscation. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|