9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 999X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chequer without the knowledge of connivance of the respondent, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed any fraud. He further held that there was nothing available on record to suggest that the CHA has committed the fraud on the suggestion of the Director of the respondent - charges of fraud cannot be levelled against the respondent and thus extended period of limitation set aside - app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion conducted by the Department clearly revealed that neither DEPB scrips wherein the possessions of the importer nor it was issued by DGFT in favour of the respondent and that the scripts that were also not legally purchased by the importer. He further submitted that the Show Cause Notice has been rightly issued under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 for non-payment or short payment of duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Heard both the sides and perused the records. 5. I find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has specifically observed that the adjudication order dated 14.03.2011 has admitted that the respondent like other parties in the said order were not aware of the fact that the CHA had used fictious DEPB numbers on the Bills of Entry towards payment of part duty and that the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the facts of this case, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has held the responsibility on the CHA for payment of the balance amount of duty and penalty will have to be borne by the CHA and not by the respondent/importer. 7. In view of the fact that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has specifically held that charges of fraud cannot be levelled against the respondent and the reasons have been elab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
