9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pen market. The imports were during February - March 2003. On investigation conducted by the Department, it was established that the licenses were ab initio void being forged. DGFT authorities have cancelled the licenses w.e.f. 10.9.2003. Subsequently, the Department has received investigation report on 30.3.2004 and a show-cause notice dated 6.10.2004 was issued to the appellant to recover customs duty foregone. The Commissioner of Customs vide OIO No.3/2004 directed the Asst. Commissioner of Customs to finalize the assessment of said Bills of Entry in terms of Section 82 of Customs Act, 1962. On appeal filed, CESTAT decided the appeals No. C/60/2005 and C/150/2005 by remanding back to the original authority and disallowing the appeal for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned AR for the department has submitted that this very Bench has decided the issue in the case of the appellant himself in favour of the Revenue and has held that Department was within its right to take into consideration the fact that the licenses were forged and ab initio void at the time of finalization of the provisional assessment. The Tribunal has held as follows: "10. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The thrust of the learned advocate's argument is that on submission of the Bill of Lading the assessment ought to have been finalized. This contention is not acceptable. It is a fact that goods were cleared on the basis of the forged DEPB scrips. Though, the appellants acted bonafidely, the exchequer has been p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 005 (187) ELT A31 (SC). He also relied upon the following decisions: * Rajput Steels vs. CCE, Delhi-I: 2017 (358) ELT 598 (Tri.-Del.) * Friends Trading Company vs. UOI: 2011 (267) ELT 33 (P & H) * Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Aafloat Textiles (I) Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (235) ELT 587 (SC) 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that in the instant case the assessments were provisional and at the time of finalization it was brought to the light that the DEPB scrips were forged having known the fact the department cannot put the Revenue at loss due to the argument that the importer was a bona fide transferee of the scrips and was not having any knowledge of the forgery etc., in respect of the scrips. Moreover, we f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
