TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the earliest, of the wrongful benefit which accrued to the appellant on account of the impugned documents – demand of duty and interest sustainable. Imposition of penalty – Held that: - Once it is established that the appellants had no role in fabrication or forgery of the impugned documents, there is no ground for imposition of penalty either on the appellant or on the Executive Director – penalty set aside – appeal disposed off – partly decided in favor of appellant. - C/604-605/2008 - A/30582-30583/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri S.P. Rao, Asst. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent. ORDE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds and once same is accepted by the customs and goods stand cleared, the importer makes the payment to the seller of the scrips considering these documents as genuine and that normally these scrips are traded through the broker. b. The adjudicating authority has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in the earlier order dated 02.11.2004 by not providing them documents and permitting cross examination of witnesses. The Revenue cannot allege that DEPBs being forged by them. The DEPBs were first checked and accepted been genuine and the said DEPBs were also endorsed as accepted and once again checked and verified by another authority at Customs Office at Kakinada without any dispute. Now revenue cannot allege that DEPBs were forged. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged. We also hold that the view propounded by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the Aafloat Textiles case (supra, viz, that it was for the buyer to establish that he had no knowledge about the genuineness or otherwise of the SIL in question. will doubtless apply to this case also. However, it is not disputed that the CBI had investigated the matter and the report, as per the adjudicating authority's own mention in para 25 of the order, does not vindicate the importer's role in fabrication/forgery of the DPEPB scrips or the TRAs . Viewed in this context, the appellant have definitely established that they had no knowledge about the non-genuineness of the documents, and more importantly CBI have not implicated them in the forgery. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
