TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Emptor" laid down by the Supreme Court, the appeal filed by M/s.DCW Ltd. the demands were confirmed. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - While we agree that the SCN has not made a connection with regard to the fake and forged licences and guilty mind of the appellants, we are of the view that since we have taken a decision in the case of DCW Ltd., there is no reason for us to deviate from the same, and accordingly invocation of extended period is also upheld. Imposition of penalties - Held that: - While we are following the precedence in the case of DCW Ltd. in so far as the confirmation of demand of duty is concerned, we do not wish to follow this as a precedence for the purpose of imposition of penalty for the reason tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of EXIM Policy 2002-2007.Their associated firms are M/s.K.T.V. Oil Mills, M/s.Crystal Traders, M/s.Jupiter Trading Corporation. It was the case of the Revenue that appellants had imported RBD Palmolein against fake licences purchased from one M/s.Jyoti Enterprises and M/s.Paras International, through a broker from M/s.R. Somanathan Co. The appellants cleared the goods without payment of duty by availing DEPB credit under six fake and forged DEPB licences and TRAs and wrongly availed exemption under Notfn No.45/2002-Cus. dt. 22.4.2002. Four show cause notices all dt. 24.12.2004 were issued against the appellants. The SCN issued against M/s.Glory Impex was adjudicated by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin and the rest wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Tuticorin in a sealed cover; that they purchased the licences through the brokers in Tuticorin viz. Somanathan Co.; that the licence was treated as a valid licence and the goods were cleared against the same; it is a case of forged DEPB licences which were procured by M/s. R. Somanathan Co. and they have not committed any illegality or fraud. When there is no allegation in the SCN that the importer had knowledge or reason to believe that the licence purchased from the broker was false or forged, the extended period of limitation is not attached against the noticee. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that the authorities merely relied on the statements and based on presumptions and assumptions. Mere engagement of broker t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We have carefully gone through the records and have considered the submissions of both sides. The issue before us is as to whether the clearance of imported goods by utilization of fake/forged DEPB licences are in order and whether extended period of duty demand is sustainable and if both these are upheld, whether imposition of penalty is in order. 6. We find that the issue is as to whether clearance of goods by utilizing fake/forged DEPB licences now well settled by the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC Vs Aafloat Textiles (I) P.Ltd. - 2009 (235) ELT 587 (SC) . We also note from the very same Commissionerate another appellant viz. M/s.DCW Ltd. has contested this issue and vide Final Order No.41743/2015 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty for the reason that in those cases, the penalty was not under Section 114A but in the instant appeals, the penalties are under Section 114A where there is no discretion for the Tribunal to impose any lesser penalty. 7. The appellant made a plea before the Bench that they had filed police complaint and got the offenders arrested and it was the department duty to have taken up the matter further but failed on this score. This issue has also been dealt by the Tribunal's decision in the case of DCW Ltd. (supra) and therefore there is no reason for us to deviate from the said view taken by us. In view of the above, demand of duty is upheld. Invocation of longer period is upheld and the penalties are upheld. In the result ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
