2014 (3) TMI 872

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for the Respondent. ORDER After hearing both the sides duly represented by Shri Sudhir Malhotra, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent and Ms. Renu Jagdev, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue, I find that the appellant imported goods on 30-8-2000 and 30-9-2000 under the claim of benefit of Notification No. 34/97 in terms of DEPB scrip purchased by them from one Beni Exports. 2. During th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r dated 11-11-2005 confirmed the duty of Rs. 1,29,089/- along with interest. However, as regards penalty the adjudicating authority has observed as under :- "......penal action has also been proposed against noticee No. 1. I find that there is nothing on records that noticee No. 1 in any manner abetted or connived in the fraudulent action of noticee No. 2. Even in show cause notice there is no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d sustainable in view of law declared by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hiko Enterprises reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 135 (Tri.) which stands confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Ld. Advocate has made reliance on the following decisions :- "(i) Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. reported in 2011 (273) E.L.T. 149 (Tri.) held that valid DEPB scrip used for import of goods - no reason fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Revenue, I find that there is no dispute on the facts. Admittedly the export had taken place when the DEPB scrip were not cancelled by the DGFT and were still valid in the eyes of law. There is also no finding of any aiding and abating Beni Export by the appellant. The portion of the order of the adjudicating authority dropping the proposal to impose penalty does not stand appealed against by th....