9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ynopsis of arguments stands submitted on behalf of the department on 29.06.10 which was reiterated by the learned SDR. 3.1. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the DRI, in November,2002 commenced investigation about the genuineness of the DEPB licences of exporters licence holders like Sephali Marketing (P) Ltd. (SMPL), M/s.R.A.International (RAI), M/s.Angel Marketing Finance (P) Ltd. (AMFPL). The investigation revealed that these exporters misdeclared the description of export products and inflated the export invoice value and obtained DEPB licences for ineligible and excessive duty credit. The DEPB licences were transferred on sale to different parties M/s.ZYG Pharma (P) Ltd., M/s.Kalpana Industries, Kolkata, M/s.SKF Bearing (P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed supra. The Tribunal in its order dt.28.4.06 also held that the duty demand could not have been made for the extended period under proviso to Section 28 as the appellant, as transferee of licence was not guilty of any offence as mentioned in the proviso to Section 28. 5. Learned SDR submitted that the DEPB scrips have been obtained by mis representation and fraud by the licence holders. Therefore, the said licenses are not valid licences and they cannot validly be transferred to the other persons like the present appellant. As fraud nullifies every thing, subsequent transaction, even if bonafide does not validate the licences obtained by fraud. He also submits that the appellant has not chosen to initiate any civil/criminal procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d or suppression or mis-statement of facts. The appellant had only purchased validly issued tradable licence and used the same for payment of duty. Learned Counsel has pointed out that the finding in the impugned order is that the exporter who obtained the DEPB licence had committed fraud and misdeclared the value of exported goods. It is being emphasized that there was no fraud or suppression or mis-statement of facts by the present appellant. Learned Counsel has pointed out that another similar case involving the same DEPB licence had come up before this Tribunal and the Tribunal held in the case of M/s.Kamani Oil Industries vs. C.C., New Delhi-2006-TIOL-410 that no duty demand could be raised against the purchaser of DEPB licence since h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
