9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that the petitioner exported ferro silicon through the Kolkata/Haldia Port during the period 2008-2009 to 2011-2012 declaring the goods to be of Indian origin in the export documents including shipping bills. Subsequently the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted an investigation into the matter and found that the goods were actually of Bhutanese origin and not of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the petitioner must pay the import duty which the petitioner did not pay on the strength of the DEPB licenses. In fact, the department claimed import duty in respect of the 54 DEPB licenses which as per the show cause notice amounted to Rs. 3,20,46,327/-. The petitioner deposited Rs. 1,50,00,000/- with the department prior to issuance of the show cause notice. Thereafter, before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5/- and not Rs. 3,20,46,327/-. However, the DRI opposed the request of the petitioner for waiver of penalty. The Settlement Commission in effect held that the petitioner was liable only for a portion of the total import duty and the remainder should be recovered from the parties who had purchased the DEPB license from the petitioner and had utilised the same for importing goods free of import duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licenses. Since it is now admitted that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the DEPB licenses all that the department should look forward to is recovery of the amount of Rs. 3,12,60,465/-. Who pays the money should not matter to the department. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the importers purchased the DEPB license from the petitioner for valuable consideration. Hence it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
