2016 (9) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ok the view that the said documents being ab- initio void , they were not valid for discharge of duty liability in terms of Notification No.45/2002-Cus dated 22.04.2002. Proceedings were initiated by Department vide SCN dated 11.12.2003 proposing recovery of duty of Rs. 1,98,78,418/-  and interest thereto along with imposition of penalty. The resultant adjudication order No.05/2004 dated 27-02-2004, which confirmed the SCN proposals, in the first round of appeal, was remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. 2.  In de novo adjudication, lower authority once again confirmed demand of Rs. 1,98,78,418/ and interest thereto along with imposition of penalty. He....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Their final assessment in their case was done only on 19.03.2004. Therefore prior issue of show cause notice on 11.12.2003 is not in accordance with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and will result in the entire proceedings getting vitiated. 4. The submissions made by the Ld. AR Sri. S.P. Rao is as under: a.  The de novo adjudicating authority had given sufficient opportunities to the appellant for attending hearings, giving oral /written submissions and for cross examination. In fact the adjudicating authority had requested the appellant to submit list of persons for cross examination. However the same was not submitted by appellant who instead took repeated adjournments. b.  The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rector. We therefore hold that this part of the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellant and also on Sri Jitender Kumar Kedia cannot survive and will have to be set aside. 8.  Coming to the demand of differential Customs duty, it is not disputed that the duty liability of Rs. 1,98,78,418/ otherwise payable by the appellant on the imported crude Palmolein was discharged only through adjustment /debit on the forged DEPB  scrips. Thus, admittedly, the appellant has benefitted to that extent, and moreover, such benefit is not permissible in law since the said forged DEPB scrips were void ab initio. In the event, the department is correct in demanding the said differential duty not paid by the appellant. The plea of the appe....