9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the petitioner has discharged the entire liability himself, on behalf of the importers also to who he sold DEPB license – Held that: - the ground on which the Settlement Commission rejected the application for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, is not sustainable at law. The department is concerned with the recovery of the import duty which was not paid by the concerned importers on the strength of the DEPB 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 ₹ 3,12,60,465/-. Who pays the money should not matter to the department. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the importers p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porting certain goods free of import duty. A show cause cum demand notice under Sections 124 and 28 of Customs Act, 1962 dated 3rd January 2014 was issued by the DRI, Kolkata Zonal Unit, alleging that since the goods that the petitioner had exported were not of Indian origin, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of DEPB licenses. 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 ₹ 3,20,46,327/-. The petitioner deposited ₹ 1,50,00,000/- with the department prior to issuance of the show cause notice. Thereafter, before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the petitioner. Primarily on that ground, the Settlement Commission rejected the application of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the department. I am of the view that the ground on which the Settlement Commission rejected the application for settlement under Section 127B of the Customs Act, is not sustainable at law. The department is concerned with the recovery of the import duty which was not paid by the concerned importers on the strength of the DEPB 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 ₹ 3,12,60,465/-. Who pays the money ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
