9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 178 - AT - CustomsDEPB 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 Customs dated 21.09.2004. The Revenue claims that the documents were forged and fabricated. The Revenue relied on another set of copies of shipping bills warehousing register, etc. to contend that the shipment date is only 24.09.2004. On close examination of these documents, we are convinced that contrary claims were made on the basic fact of date of shipment based on the documents, which bear the signature of customs offices. When the respondent produced various documents bearing signature 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.
Issues:
Determining the correct date of export of goods under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book Scheme (DEPB) and the subsequent imposition of customs duty and penalties. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the date of export of Polyester Fabrics by the respondent under the DEPB Scheme. The Revenue contended that the goods were exported on 24.09.2004, while the respondent claimed the export date as 21.09.2004. The Original Authority confirmed the export date as 24.09.2004, imposing customs duty and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The main argument by the Revenue was that the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot take a contrary view without providing reasons for the change. The Revenue presented various documents, alleging manipulation by the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent maintained that the goods were exported on 21.09.2004, supported by shipping bills and customs officer signatures dated 21.09.2004. The Tribunal analyzed the documents submitted by both parties and noted conflicting claims regarding the date of shipment. The Revenue's sole ground of appeal was the Commissioner's change in view, which the Tribunal deemed legally unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that the earlier findings concluded in the Tribunal's order, which remanded the case for a fresh decision, allowing for a different conclusion in the subsequent appeal. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) detailed the discrepancies in the documents presented by both parties. The Commissioner highlighted the authenticity of shipping bills dated 21.09.2004 and the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the Revenue's allegations of forgery. The Commissioner also referenced judicial decisions and concluded that no duty demand could be made against the respondent due to the transfer of DEPB scrip to a third party. The Tribunal further emphasized the need for the Revenue to conduct a thorough inquiry into alleged document manipulation and forgery, which was not adequately addressed in the case. Without concrete evidence of forgery, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's findings, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of thorough investigations and legal principles in resolving disputes related to export dates and duty entitlement schemes.
|
