9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 861X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods on the appellant under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the appellant is the importer of the goods and had not been involved in any fraud, collusion etc, and therefore, extended period of limitation could not be invoked. He submits that the demand is barred by limitation. He relied upon the following case laws :- (i) Eastern Silk Indus. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport/Admn.) Kolkata reported in 2016 (336) E.L.T 141 (Tri.-Kol). (ii) Commissioiner of Customs (Imports), Bombay Vs. HICO Enterprises reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T 161 (S.C). 4 I find from the Adjudication order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue Delhi CESTAT in the case of C.C., Amritsar v. Sona Castings [2010 (259) E.L.T. 693 (Tri.-Del.)] held that fraud vitiates everything and transferee is also responsible to pay duty against such scripts obtained fraudutantly. This conclusion drawn is based on several quoted case laws of Apex Court and High Courts of Kolkata & Punjab & Haryana. The ratio laid down by Calcutta High Court in the case of ICI India Ltd. v. C.C. (Port), Calcutta [2005 (184) E.L.T. 334] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present appeal. This order of the Calcutta High Court has also been affirmed by Apex Court as reported at 2005 (187) E.L.T. A31 (S.C.) where invocation of extended period was also justified. Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. But ultimately it was found that the said DEPB licence/scrips were forged. These facts are not in dispute as we find from the finding of the learned CEGAT. The only question that has been put forward, on the basis of the finding of the facts without challenging the same, is about the effect of absence of collusion on the part of the appellant, as pointed out earlier, in relation to the availability of the credit under the forged DEPB scrips. But in the decision in United India Insurance (supra), the forgery related to the driving licence of the driver engaged by the insured, but the Insurance Policy was not found to be forged. The question would be different if the document itself, on the strength whereof credit is claimed is forged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. C.C., Mumbai [2015 (319) E.L.T. 546 (S.C.)] on the issue of applicability of extended period in such cases it has been held by Apex Court as follows : "[Order] - The only question in the present appeals is as to whether the customs authorities could invoke the provisions of proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, to avail the benefit of extended period of limitation. 2. In the facts of the present case we find that the original licence holder, namely, Indian Card, Clothings Company Limited had deliberately suppressed the fact of having availed Modvat credit under Rule 57A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and made willfully wrong declaration to the licensing authority to obtain the endorsement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
