TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (7) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the same through Ms. Vidya Mahadik, Mr. Shrenik Mehta. Mr Shrenik Mehta procured the said licences from Mr. one Sanjay Rai, who, in turn, claimed to have got the same from one Mr. Rameshchandra. Before the licences were acquired by the appellants herein, they had verified the fact of the issuance of such licences by the office of the DGFT, who published a monthly bulletin in which the licence numbers were appeared. This was done to confirm that the said licences were issued by the competent jurisdictional authority. Along with the original licences, the appellants also received transfer letters and each such transfer letter bore bank attestation verifying the signature of the transferor. Ex facie from the record, it was submitted that none ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....des and considering the material, it is found: (a) On merits : (i) None of the said licences bore any endorsements/remarks of cancellation/defacement nor were they cancelled or defaced when the imports were made. They were also held to be valid licences and the clearances were allowed to be made. FTDO or any other officer of DGFT did not appear for cross-examination, despite number of summons and letters sent to them by the adjudicator. The adjudicator's reliance on a single letter issued by FTDO therefore does not appear to be sufficient reason to come to a conclusion that the said SILs, as produced to Customs were in fact cancelled/invalidated on reasons as being alleged and found, when the SILs w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are of the DGFT authorities once the transfers have been effected as per the procedure prescribed. This has been held by the Larger Bench in the case of Hico Enterprises v. Commissioner - 2005 (189) E.L.T. 135 (LB). We therefore cannot find any liability on the transferee especially has been brought out by this post facto questioning of the imports allowed by the proper officer. (b) Benefit of Notification : (i) Notification 117/94-Cus., dated 27-4-1994 exempts goods (gold, silver) covered by SILs. The exemption is eligible so long as the goods are covered. This exemption is irrespective of the fact whether the transfer letters are valid or not. This is not disputed. (ii) The exempti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....R. on the case of J.B. Trading Corporation, 1990 (45) E.L.T. 9 (Mad) and ICI India Ltd., 2003 (151) E.L.T. 336, Surya Prabha Sales Corporation v. CC, 1993 (67) E.L.T. 571 are not well founded in the facts and circumstances of this case, since importers here, viz the appellants, are not fictitious. They are an existing firm who have obtained the SILs as holders in due course on a consideration in good faith and the fact of the licences being cancelled/invalidated is not established. (iii) Reliance of the ld. D.R. on the case of De-Nocil Corporation Protection Ltd., 2004 (171) E.L.T. 209 also will not held the Revenue's case since this is not a case of issue of DEPB issue on the basis of fake documents. In the case of Denocil C....