2008 (7) TMI 359

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e – Demand is not sustainable.
D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. Shri Harin P. Raval, for the Appellant. None, for the Respondent. [Judgment per : D.A. Mehta, J. (Oral)].- Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, Gandhidham has preferred this appeal by proposing following two questions stated to be questions of law. [a] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Tribunal is justified in confirming the decision of the Commissioner [Appeals], who set aside the demand of duty on the ground that the Revenue had not attributed misstatement or suppression of fact despite having asserted fraud committed by the exporter resulting in clearance of imported goods without payment of duty? [b] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y imports on the basis of such license were liable to duty. The respondent assessee had not paid such duty and was thus liable but the Tribunal had wrongly come to the conclusion that the respondent was not liable by holding that revenue was not entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation available under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). That fraud vitiates every act and even if there may be no deliberate act on part of the respondent assessee in commission of fraud yet respondent assessee cannot escape liability to pay duty once the import was found to be on an invalid license. 4. Section 28 of the Act permits issuing of a notice to show cause and determination of the amount of duty or interest; and thereupon payment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arance of imported goods without payment of duty by importer and as such, Revenue should be allowed to recover the customs duty." 7. In the aforesaid factual matrix after appreciation of evidence on record, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there is no collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of facts qua the importer namely the person against whom the demand is being made. The Tribunal has thus upheld the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there is no error in law committed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference. No question of law, as proposed or otherwise, much less a substantial question of law can be said to be ari .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X