2006 (2) TMI 477

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....address) supposed to have been issued by Navasheva Customs House. The appellant purchased DEPB License from M/s. Bhagiya Laxshmi Exports for a consideration of Rs. 47,02,140/- The payment was made through IDBI Bank at Chennai through pay order. On the basis of the TRA, the appellant availed duty exemption to the tune of Rs. 48,72,679/-. Departmental investigation revealed that Nava Sheva Customs House did not issue the TRS under which the appellant cleared the goods at Cochin. Consequently, the Revenue proceeded against the appellants for recovery of duty and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority demanded an amount of Rs. 48,72,679/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, he imposed equal penalty under Section 11....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e duty demanded. He relied on the following case laws:- (i)      ICI India Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs [2003 (151) E.L.T. 336(Tri-Del.)] wherein it was held that fake document is ab initio unlawful and void, such document cannot give rise to any right or benefit in law. (ii)    Further in the case of Denocil Corporation v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2004 (171) E.L.T. 209 (Tri-Mumbai)], the Tribunal has held that the failure in the part of DGFT and Customs official to verify authenticity of such documents cannot be a ground for extending duty exemption when conditions of exemption notification are not met. 6. The learned SDR stated that clearances of goods on the basis of fake TR....