2011 (6) TMI 446

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sp;                      Per Mathew John: There are four appeals being decided in this Appeal. Two are filed by the importer and two are filed by Revenue. All the four Appeal arise from the same impugned order. The adjudication order confirmed the duty demanded and imposed redemption fine and penalty.  In appeal Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demanded but set aside fine and penalty.  Both sides are aggrieved about the order of Commissioner (Appeals) and have filed these appeals.       2. This is a case where the Appellant purchased Duty Exemption Pass Book license No. 3010006203 dated 10-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t applicable to the case because in that case the license itself was a forged one whereas in this case the license was in fact issued by JDGFT and was valid at the time of import of the goods. The ld. Counsel relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in CC Bombay Vs. Sneha Sales Corporation- 2000(121) ELT 577 SC. Para 5 of the order reads thus: "5.?In the aforementioned decision of this Court it has been clearly laid down that in a case where the licence is obtained by misrepresentation or fraud it is not rendered non est as a result of its cancellation so as to result in the goods that were imported on the basis of the said licences and being treated as goods imported without a licence in contravention of the order passed under Section....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2010 (258) ELT A72 (SC). (ii) CC Vs. Sona Castings- 2010 (259) ELT (Tri-Del). 8. The facts in this case are identical to that in the case of Friends Trading Co. and that in the case of Sona Casting (Supra). DEPB scripts were obtained on the basis of fraudulent documents. The script was cancelled by DGFT only after import of the goods by the transferee of the license. 9.The case of East India Commercial Co. Ltd is the earliest of the cases quoted by the Counsel for Appellant. This case was under the old Sea Customs Act, 1878. Further it was about violation of post import condition that the goods should have been used by the importer himself that is the goods should not have been sold. So this decision is not relevant to the facts of pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t he had made enquires with JDGFT and hence the extended period of time should not apply in his case.   14. The facts of the case of Larson and Toubro is very different. It is cited only to argue how the Respondent is protected from invoking extended period of time because of his bonafide belief and actions. 15. A DEPB script is similar to a cheque drawn on the Government exchequer and is transferrable by endorsement. However it is not a negotiable instrument enjoying the protection of section 120 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. So the transferee, even for bonafide consideration, cannot get a better claim than the transferor against government, the drawee. So a transferee in such transaction has to exercise the well known maxim ....