2015 (2) TMI 463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the respondent demanding payment of duty amount of Rs. 6,85,945/- alleged to be inadmissible DEPB credit on the ground that the said license was procured by M/s Sneha Enterprises fraudulently by misrepresenting the facts. The respondent has denied any knowledge of the fraudulent activities of the said exporter; that the DEPB licences were purchased from a mediator and the same were duly verified by Revenue and found to be genuine. The Revenue has demanded payment of Customs duty with applicable interest in addition penalty was imposed on the respondent under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondent. 3. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order allowed the appeal filed by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he situation is different if the said scrip is est ab initio as in the case of a forged DEPB scrip where even the purchaser of such scrip could not have any relief.  As already arrived at above, in the instant case, the appellants are bonafide purchasers of the DEPB scrip in question from the open market and hence the situation in this case is akin to the facts of the case in C.C., Amritsar vs. M/s Leader Valves Ltd; and C.C., Amritsar vs. M/s Vallabh Design Products, 2007 (219) ELT 73 (P&H) and M/s Flexo Polymers Ltd. vs. CC, Amritsar.  Hence, I find that application of the ratio of the said decisions renders the order of the Addl. Commissioner dated 18.4.2011 non-maintainable. In view of the foregoing, I pass the following order....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who comes forward to take advantage on the basis of fraudulently obtained or forged DEPB, it also covers action of the predecessor of the importer. Importer who steps into the shoes of seller of forged document does not stand on better footing and cannot be allowed to retain benefit illegally obtained. Taint attaching to the document on the basis of which benefit is taken is not washed of. Fraud or suppression continues if document is not genuine. Any other interpretation will defeat the intendment of the proviso to Section 28 and will enable fraud to be perpetuated without any remedy. Even if case of criminal liability or penalty may stand on different footing, purchaser or successor of fraudulently obtained DEPB stands in the same positio....