9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding duty by rejecting the claim of the appellant of import of goods against DEPB licence No. 310490247. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed bills of entry on 26/11/2008 and 10/12/2008 for import of electronic items. The appellant filed bill of entry claiming the benefit against DEPB licence No. 310490247 issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uty be demanded or the imports made by the appellant can be terms as illegal imports. The said issue has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Vallabh Design Products [207 (219) ELT 73 (P&H)] and extended the benefit of DEPB scrips. The said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble apex Court reported in [2016 (341) ETL A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the considered view that this appeal is devoid of any merit. The assessee-respondent admittedly is not a party to the fraud. There are categorical finding that it had purchased DEPB from the open market in the bona fide belief of its being genuine. The assessee-respondent had paid full price and accordingly had availed the benefit. 10. It is also worth noticing that the assessee-respondent was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue has been dismissed.
8. As the issue has already been settled, therefore, I hold that the liability of duty cannot be fastened on the appellant being a bona fide purchaser of DEPB scrips.
9. In these circumstances I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.
(Dictated and Pronounced in open court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
