Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

CC (Preventive) , New Delhi Versus M/s. Shriya Textiles

2017 (12) TMI 178 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

DEPB Scheme - relevant date of export of goods - Polyester Fabrics - The respondent based on documents showing export on 21.09.2004 obtained DEPB Scrips from JDGFT, New Delhi having benefit of 10%. The Revenue contended that the date of export is 24.09.2004 with relevant applicable benefit of 5.5 % only - Held that: - Admittedly, the copies of the shipping bills submitted by the respondent clearly show the date stamp as 21.09.2004 along with the signatures of Inspector and the Superintendent of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of customs officers dated 21.09.2004, it is necessary for the department to enquire as to how such documents were presented and in case of questioning their bonafideness, to conduct further inquiry with reference to the alleged forgery. We are not informed of any such inquiry conducted internally by the Department to support the allegation of manipulation or forgery of these documents signed by the officers. - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 57374/2013 ( DB .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ment Pass Book Scheme (DEPB). The whole dispute in the present case relates to the date of export of these goods. The respondent based on documents showing export on 21.09.2004 obtained DEPB Scrips from JDGFT, New Delhi having benefit of 10%. The Revenue contended that the date of export is 24.09.2004 with relevant applicable benefit of 5.5 % only. The respondent filed four shipping bills and claimed DEPB benefit of ₹ 18,97,007/-. 2. Based on certain verification of records and inquiry, th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 7.6.2011. On further appeal, the Tribunal vide order dated 9.11.2011 remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for a fresh decision. The direction of the Tribunal was to decide the case afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of personal hearing to the party. The case was re-adjudicated by the Original Authority vide order dated 29.10.2012. The Original Authority affirmed the view of the Revenue that the goods were exported on 24.09.2005 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he present order by the Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the earlier findings by the very same authority in the first round of litigation. No reason is recorded for change of view. The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot take contrary view on the same set of facts. 4. Further, during the course of argument as well as in further written submissions, ld. AR reiterated that the copies of the bills of lading covering shipping bills clearly indicate the date as 24.09.2004. Copies of the shipping bills .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

date of shipment as 24.09.2004. Shri Manish Oberoi in his statement dated 28.11.2007 clearly stated that the goods were examined at ICD, Rewari on 24.09.2004 and the let export order was given on 29.09.2004. All the evidences relevant to the case were examined in detail by the Original Authority. As such, the impugned order has not appreciated these documentary evidences in proper perspective. He prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for restoring the original order. 5. Ld. Counsel fo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o decide the date of export. Further, the ld. Counsel contended that the DEPB scrip was issued by the competent licensing authority, JDGFT, New Delhi on the basis of the verification report given by the jurisdictional Customs officers. In fact, the verification report dated 14.03.2005 given by the Superintendent of Customs, ICD, Rewari addressed to the FTDO, New Delhi clearly states that the shipping bills dated 21.09.2004 are genuine. 6. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the only gr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g. The earlier finding does not exist as the same has been set aside by the Tribunal. No other ground is mentioned by the Revenue in the appeal. However, later in written submissions, the Revenue made certain allegations with reference to the correctness of the date of export. It is the case of the respondent that when the DEPB scrip was issued by the competent authority, any variation or cancellation of licence has to be done by the issuing authority only. The customs officers are not competent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ate of export of goods by the respondent. The respondent claimed that the exports were made on 21.09.2004 and the Revenue claimed the same is done only on 24.09.2004. We have perused the various documents submitted by both the sides. Admittedly, the copies of the shipping bills submitted by the respondent clearly show the date stamp as 21.09.2004 along with the signatures of Inspector and the Superintendent of Customs dated 21.09.2004. The Revenue claims that the documents were forged and fabric .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by the respondent, the only ground agitated in the appeal filed by the Revenue is that the Commissioner cannot arrive at a different finding when the very same authority passed an order in favour of the Revenue in the first round of litigation. We note that the ground relied on by the Revenue in this regard is legally not sustainable. It is clear that the proceedings in the first round of litigation concluded and merged in the final order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after setting aside the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be overwritten to make it 21.04.2009. all the four SBs were registered at Rewari said to be on 24.09.2004 as per entry in DEPB Register and the date of entry appeared to be tempered with to show the date as 21.09.2004. But the file C.No. VIII/ICD/RE/Shriya/DEPB/13/05 containing correspondence and note sheet relating to issue of Release Advices against the DEPB Licenses No. 0510155316 dated 08.04.2005 and 0510155532 dated 12.04.2005 of the appellant, contained SBs Nos. 39-42 all dated 21.09.2004 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

21.09.2004. From the perusal of theses SBs, I find that all the four SBs bear the seal-stamp by the department as ICD Customs Rewari, S.Bill No. 0039 to 0042 and all the four stamps are dated 21 Sep, 2004. I also find that all the said four shipping bills were processed by Inspector and Superintendent of Customs under their signatures all dated 21.09.2004. There is nothing in the impugned order to show how these shipping bills were processed on 21.09.2004 when they all were alleged to be dated 2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng Bills No. 0039 and 0040 both dated 21.09.04 have been issued from this port and are genuine. The above said letter has been provided to the appellant by the adjudicating authority vide letter C.No. VIII(SB)10/48/50/GAMMA/Adj/2012 dated 9578 dated 17.8.2012. This proves the genuineness of the SBs. There is nothing in the impugned order to show that when the above said letter was on record and the adjudicating authority himself had supplied the same to the appellant, why it was discarded by the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

EPB credit is not covered by Section 28. The respondent is not an importer and did not claim any concession of customs duty. The DEPB scrip has been transferred to a third party. We find analysis is made in the impugned order based on the ratio of the decision by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd. - 1983 (13) ELT 1342 (SC), Sampat Raj Dugar - 1992 (58) ELT 163 (SC) and Sneha Sales Corpn - 2000 (121) ELT 577 (SC). Since the respondent did not import any goods, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version