9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (12) TMI 734 - HC - CustomsDEPB License - case of Revenue is that DEPB licenses were obtained by the seller by fraud - recovery of dues - Held that - The assessee does not dispute that the DEPB scrips in question were not obtained through fraud - The Department 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 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of DEPB license issuance and privity of contract. 2. Application of Sales of Goods Act versus Customs Act provisions. 3. Consideration of fraud in duty exemption cases. 4. Relevance of High Court and Supreme Court rulings on liability in fraud cases. 5. Referral to Larger Bench due to contradictory orders. Issue 1 - Interpretation of DEPB license issuance and privity of contract: The Department appealed the CESTAT judgment challenging the privity of contract between the Revenue Department and the Transferee of License regarding DEPB licenses. The Department argued that the action of Customs should not be without prejudice to the action of DGFT. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing that being a bona fide purchaser without notice and not being party to the fraud, no recoveries can be made from the assessee. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in a similar case. Issue 2 - Application of Sales of Goods Act versus Customs Act provisions: The Department contended that the DEPB scrips were fraudulently obtained, and the assessee, as a purchaser, cannot benefit from such scrips. However, the assessee's counsel referred to a Punjab & Haryana High Court case where benefits were granted to a bona fide purchaser even if the DEPB scrips were obtained through fraud. The foundational facts were not disputed, and the Department failed to prove the assessee's involvement in the fraud. Issue 3 - Consideration of fraud in duty exemption cases: The Department did not provide evidence to suggest that the assessee was involved in the fraud related to the DEPB scrips. The Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the assessee was not a party to the fraud and had purchased the DEPB in good faith. The Court emphasized that the revenue could not avail the extended period for issuing a notice under the Customs Act due to lack of misrepresentation, collusion, or suppression of facts by the assessee. Issue 4 - Relevance of High Court and Supreme Court rulings on liability in fraud cases: The High Court and Supreme Court rulings were cited to support the contention that benefits cannot be denied to a bona fide purchaser for value, even if the DEPB scrips were obtained through fraud. The Division Bench of the High Court and a previous case involving a similar scenario were referenced to highlight the legal precedent favoring the assessee in such cases. Issue 5 - Referral to Larger Bench due to contradictory orders: The Department raised the issue of contradictory orders passed by different Benches and requested a referral to a Larger Bench. However, the Court found that under the circumstances presented, no question of law arose, and the appeal was dismissed based on the established legal principles and lack of evidence implicating the assessee in the fraud. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the lack of evidence linking the assessee to the fraud in obtaining the DEPB scrips and highlighting the legal precedent supporting the rights of bona fide purchasers in such cases.
|
