2016 (2) TMI 731

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Tribunal") in Appeal No.C/298/2007 by proposing the following questions stated to be substantial questions of law:- (i) "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the CESTAT has erred in holding that extended period cannot be invoked in the present case and has erred in not appreciating the fact that the DEPB Scrips in the instant case were obtained by the importer fraudulently?" (ii) "Whether the CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the fact that fraud was involved in the present case and the DEPB Scrips in question have no existence in the eye of law?" (iii) "Whether the CESTAT has erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of ICI India Limited Vs Commissioner of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... penalty under the Act on the importer. It was also proposed to confiscate the goods under section 125 of the Act as well as to impose penalties. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, by an Order-in-Original, confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty of equal amount of duty on the importer. 3. The importer carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal which by the impugned order held that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the facts of the present case and accordingly held that the demand was barred by limitation and set aside the order passed by the adjudicating authority. 4. Ms. Amee Yajnik, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has recorded that there is no dispute as regards the fact that the importer purchased DEPB scrips from the open market on 25th August, 2000 and imported chemicals from Kandla Port without payment of duty in September, 2000. During the investigation, it was found that the exporter M/s. Supreme Castings Limited had manipulated the export document to facilitate the extra benefit under the DEPB scheme and accordingly, the licence was cancelled by the DGFT authorities in November, 2004 whereafter a showcause notice came to be issued to the importer. The Tribunal took note of the fact that the adjudicating authority had not ....