TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 722
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (c) Whether extended period of limitation can be invoked, in view of various judgments of this Hon'ble Court ? (d) Whether impugned order is perverse and contrary to record ?" 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant purchased one DEPB scrip No. 3010006203 dated 10.10.2000 from M/s Beni Exports, Jalandhar. The same was utilised for discharging duty liability on goods imported by the appellant vide Bills of Entry dated 12.10.2000 and 19.10.2000. The department finding that DEPB obtained by M/s Beni Exports, Jalandhar, which was purchased by the appellant, was obtained by using certain forged documents, cancelled the same. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing to recover the benefit of duty payment availed of by the appellant on the basis of that DEPB. The contention of the appellant is that when DEPB was purchased by it and the date on which it was utilised for payment of duty, it was a valid scrip, hence, the appellant cannot be made liable for any action. The department may take action against the person, who got DEPB issued by submitting forged documents. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Friends Trading Co. v. Union of India, 2011 (267) ELT 33 (P&H) (hereinafter referred to as Friends Trading Co.'s case 1 (supra), submitted that all the issues sought to be raised by the appellant were considered therein and it was opined that buyer of DEPB from the person who had obtained the same by submitting forged documents, is also liable. Earlier order passed by this court in Munjal Showa Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Delhi (IV), Faridabad, 2009 (246) ELT 18 (P&H) was referred to, where on the principle of "buyer be ware", purchaser of DEPB was held liable as it was his duty to ascertain whether the scrip being purchased by it was forged or not. In the case in hand, the appellant as well could have made enquiry from the department. There is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant ever made any enquiry. The order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. No substantial question of law arises. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 8. The facts, which are not in dispute are that the appellant purchased DEPB Scrip No. 3010006203 dated 10.10.2000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ber, the appeal filed by the appellant as well as the department were rejected. The department was raising the issue regarding levy of penalty, whereas the appellant was concerned about the demand of duty, as penalty had been set aside. 10. In Vallabh Design Products' case, (supra), this court dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue involving identical issue finding that the importer therein was not a party to the fraud and there was categoric finding that he had purchased DEPB from the open market in bonafide belief of its being genuine. Reliance was placed upon an earlier judgment of this Court in Leader Valves Ltd.'s case (supra). There also, similar findings were recorded. 11. The same view was later followed in Fertichem India and M/s Deebee Marketing Pvt. Ltd.'s cases (supra). 12. The judgment of this Court in Munjal Showa Limited's case (supra) is distinguishable on facts as in that case, transfer release advices issued against DEPB scrip were forged and even DEPBs were also forged. There was no finding recorded by the Tribunal or the authorities in that case that the assessee acted bonafide. The earlier judgments of this court in Vallabh Design Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against the selling dealers, except in the case of plea of fraud, collusion or connivance between the parties. Relevant paras thereof are extracted below: "25. In legal jurisprudence, the liability can be fastened on a person who either acts fraudulently or has been a party to the collusion or connivance with the offender. However, law nowhere envisages to impose any penalty either directly or vicariously where a person is not connected with any such event or an act. Law cannot envisage an almost impossible eventuality. The onus upon the assessee gets discharged on production of Form VAT C-4 which is required to be genuine and not thereafter to substantiate its truthfulness by running from pillar to post to collect the material for its authenticity. In the absence of any malafide intention, connivance or wrongful association of the assessee with the selling dealer or any dealer earlier thereto, no liability can be imposed on the principle of vicarious liability. Law cannot put such onerous responsibility on the assessee otherwise, it would be difficult to hold the law to be valid on the touchstone of articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 26. The rule o....