TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 734X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stwal a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi I/b PDS Legal for the respondent P.C. 1. The Department has filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT for short) dated 22.03.2017. 2. The following questions are presented before us for our consideration : (i) Whether the CESTAT was right in considering that the DEPB license is being issued by DGFT; hence there is no privity of contract between department of Revenue and the Transferee of License to claim any benefit of estoppels; Action of Customs is without prejudice to action of DGFT, and not department on them when it has been clearly held so by Hon'ble S.C. in case of Sheshank Ltd. and followed by other High Courts ? ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Two different Benches (In view of Vodafone India Ltd. 2015 324 ELT 434Bom/ Sunbel Alloys Co. 2015 316 ELT 353 Bom / Kraps Chem Pvt. Ltd. 2015 319 ELT 622 SC )? 3. Brief facts are that the respondent-assessee had purchased certain DEPB scrips from the market in relation to which investigation of the Department revealed that the DEPB licenses were obtained by the seller by fraud. In other words, the Department had material to suggest that without making actual export, on the strength of fraudulently created documents such DEPB licenses were obtained. On the strength of such DEPB scrip, the assessee had cleared imported goods. A showcause notice, therefore, came to be issued against the assessee and others on 30th July, 2002 to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not brought any evidence on record to suggest that the assessee was party to the fraud. In fact, possibly there is no such allegation in the show-cause notice also. 6. Under similar circumstances, the Division Bench of Punjab Haryana High Court in case of Vallabh Design Products had held and observed as under : 9. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal is devoid of any merit. The assessee-respondent admittedly is not a party to the fraud. There are categorical finding that it had purchased DEPB from the open market in the bona fide belief of its being genuine. The assesee-respondent had paid full price and accordingly had availed the benefit. 10. It is also worth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
