9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, against the DEPB licence, therefore, demand for the extended period cannot be raised against the transferee of the licensee - In view of the above findings, being same set of facts in the present cases, the demand of extended period is not sustainable. Since we are deciding these appeals only on the ground of limitation, we do not incline to address the merit of the case. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/387, 388, 389/2010-DB C/394/2010-DB C/395/2010-DB C/CO/195/2010 C/396/2010-DB C/408/2010-DB C/409/2010-DB C/432/2010-DB C/433/2010-DB C/434/2010-DB - Final Order No. A/ 11391-11401 /2018 - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - HON BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And HON BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For Appellant: Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Union of India 2010 (258) ELTA 72 (S.C.) Golden Tools International Vs. Joint DGFT, Ludhiana 2013 (293) ELT A57 (S.C.) Munjal Showa Ltd Vs. Commr. Of Cus C.Ex (Delhi-IV), Faridabad 2009 (246) ELT 18 (P H) CC, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi Vs. Orient Ceramics Inds. Ltd 2016 (344) ELT 449 (Tri. Del) Rajput Steels Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Delhi-I 2017 (358) ELT 598 (Tri-Del) Dow Agro Sciences India Pvt.Ltd. 2012 ELT 524 (Tri, Mumbai) 3. Sh. Manish Jain, Ld. Counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents, namely, Klj Plasticizers, Gokul Refoils and Silvassa Plast and submits that it has been consistently held in various judgments that even though the DEPB license was obtained by the exporter fraudulently but the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) ELT 47 (Bom.) CC Vs. Ajay Kumar 2009 (238) ELT 387 (SC) Ajay Kumar Co. Vs. CC 2006 (205) ELT 747 (T) Binani Cement Ltd Vs. CC 2010 (259) ELT 247 (T) CC Vs. Binani Cement Ltd 2008 (231) ELT 177 (T) CC Vs. Vallabh Design 2007 (219) ELT 73 (P H) Commissioner Vs. Vallabh Design 2016 (341) ELT A-222 (SC) CC Vs. Leader Valves Ltd 2007 (218) ELT 349 (P H) CC Vs. Leader Valves Ltd 2007 (227) ELT A.29 (SC) Kamini Oil Industries Vs. CC 2006 (196) ELT 21 (T) CC Vs. Hico Enterprises 2008 (228) ELT 161 (SC) Hico Enterprises Vs. CC 2009 (189) ELT 135 (LB) ICI India Lts Vs. CC 2005 (184) ELT 339 (Cal.) CC Vs. Aafloat Textiles P. Ltd 2009 (91) RLT 719 (SC) Larson Turbo Ltd Vs. CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by reason of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts by the importer or the exporter or the agent or employee of the importer or exporter, the provisions of sub section shall have effect as if for the words one year and six months , the words five years were substituted. In the present case, I find that there is no allegation that the appellant has not paid the duty by reason of collusion or any willful misstatement or suppression of facts, therefore, the demand of duty invoking proviso to sub section (1) of section 28 of the Act is not sustainable. There are no ground s to invoke the extended period of limitation because the appellants could not be accused of misrepresentation, collusion or suppression of facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no dispute as regards the fact that the importer purchased DEPB scrips from the open market on 25th August, 2000 and imported chemicals from Kandla Port without payment of duty in September, 2000. During the investigation, it was found that the exporter M/s. Supreme Castings Limited had manipulated the export document to facilitate the extra benefit under the DEPB scheme and accordingly, the licence was cancelled by the DGFT authorities in November, 2004 whereafter a show cause notice came to be issued to the importer. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the adjudicating authority had not given any finding that the importer had not paid the duty by reason of any collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts. Before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s barred by limitation and consequently, the imposition of penalty was not warranted. 7. From the facts noted hereinabove, it is apparent that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is based upon findings of fact recorded by it upon appreciation of the evidence on record. The Tribunal has thereafter merely applied the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case by holding that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the facts of the present case. The conclusion of the Tribunal being based upon findings of fact recorded by it does not give rise to any question of law much less, a substantial question of law so as to warrant interference. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
