TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istent and fraudulent DEPB scrips forging signatures of Customs Officers and filing fabricated TR6 challans showing discharge of duty liability and all of them had hand in glove to cause evasion of Customs duty. 2. Statements were recorded by investigation from various persons and they were also examined. Similarly different imports were also examined to ascertain the modus operandi followed by these three persons. Not only forging of signature of Customs Officers on the bill of entry in respect of different consignments was found but also it was found that the non-existent DEPB scrips were utilized for clearing imports. Concerns called Jai Bhole Overseas Co. and Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd., as well as Saini Consultant were floated by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to carry out same activity. Shri Pushpinder Singh was paid lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- for his engagement. Both Shri Oberoi and Shri Khullar were beneficiary of the fraud. Their entire ill design was carried out to make ill gain out of fraud for which all of them faced adjudication. 6. Ld. Adjudicating authority examining the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that not only forgery of signature was done by these three people but also they fabricated TR6 challans to make Customs Officers to believe that Customs duty was discharged causing loss to the exchequer. There were no existence of DEPB scrips at all but those were used falsely as medium to discharge the customs duty. Accordingly, ld. Adjudicating authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....msp;2,43,586/- 23 C/S/55036/13 in C/55065/2013  46,099/- 24 C/S/55037/13 in C/55066/2013  19,46,975/- 25 C/S/55038/13 in C/55067/2013  6,01,204/- 26 C/S/55039/13 in C/55068/2013  4,89,212/- Appellant : Pushpinder Singh 27 C/S/55129/13 in C/55150/2013  50,000/- 28 C/S/55130/13 in C/55151/2013  50,000/- 29 C/S/55131/13 in C/55152/2013  50,000/- 30 C/S/55132/13 in C/55153/2013  20,000/- 31 C/S/55133/13 in C/55154/2013  15,000/- 32 C/S/55134/13 in C/55155/2013  10,000/- 33 C/S/55135/13 in C/55156/2013  50,000/- 34 C/S/55136/13 in C/55157/2013  50,000/- 35 C/S/55137/13 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bai reported in 2007 (220) E.L.T. 492 (Tri.-Mumbai) is applicable to the case. But we are in total disagreement to his proposition for the reason that all cases are not equal. Present cases are cases of fraud and forgery, so also conspiracy against the state to cause loss to Customs. Therefore, the appellant shall not get any benefit of the decision which was also per incuriam as has been observed in the case of K.I. International v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in 2012 (282) E.L.T. 67 (Tri.-Chennai). 10. Reliance was also placed by appellant in the case of Mukesh Garg v. CCE, Noida reported in 2012 (278) E.L.T. 303 (Del.). It may be stated that the case before Hon'ble Court was not with the finding of the fact of fraud....