9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This appeal has been filed against Order -in-Original No. 7/2008, dated 29-2-2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Cochin. 2. The impugned order has been passed consequent to remand order of this Bench in Final Order No. 350/2006, dated 22-2-2006 [2006 (202) E.L.T. 522 (T). 3. We heard both sides. 4. The appellant filed Bills of Entry for clearance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant were found to be fake. The total duty involved comes to Rs. 48,72,679/-. The appellants contended that they had purchased the DEPB TRA from M/s. Bhagya Laxmi Export for a consideration of Rs. 47,02,140/- and payment was made through banking channel. The Commissioner in the impugned order confirmed the demand of duty to the extent of DEPB credit availed on the basis of fake TRA. He ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were released, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 114A does not comes into operation. Section 114A can be invoked for levy of penalty where the alleged short levy or non-levy is due to mis-declaration or suppression of facts. In the present case, there is no mis-declaration or suppression. Alleged fact of mis-declaration or suppression can be only if the assessee is in the k ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferee has to approach the port of registration for issue of TRA. Had the noticee followed the procedure, they could have ascertained the genuineness of the DEPB at that stage itself and therefore, they cannot plead innocent in the subject matter. From the above Commissioner s observation, one thing is clear that the DEPB produced itself is not valid. In such circumstances, the demand of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Nhava Sheva Custom House on an application from the appellant. Obviously, correct procedure has not been followed by the appellant. The appellant purchased the DEPB for some consideration, later, it has turned out to be a fake. Even the Custom Officer at Cochin had not verified the genuineness of TRA before releasing the goods. The appellant themselves are victims of circumstances. Taking all th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
