TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 330
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in Final Order No.41361 of 2016. 2.This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in not an adverting to the legal pleas raised on behalf of the appellant that the subsequent cancellation of the licenses/scrips will not vitiate the importation under the same availing the benefit of notification anterior to such cancellation? (ii) Is the 2nd respondent Tribunal right in not even adverting to or give a considered finding as to whether the demand made under show cause notice is barred by limitation inasmuch as rigour of proviso to Section 28(1) does not stand attracted to the facts of the instant case inasmuch as there is no conscious or overt act o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....invoicing their export consignments to claim ineligible duty free import of raw silk yarn, the export consignments, etc. 5.The assessee before us is stated to have purchased the DFIA scrips and has availed exemption from customs duty. The DFRC licence granted in the name of Shri.Kuberappa & Sons was cancelled by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, vide order dated 29.01.2010 on the ground that fraud has been played which has resulted in issuance of show cause notice dated 10.06.2011 to the assessee with the above stated proposal. The assessee submitted their objections and the Adjudicating Authority, vide order dated 16.10.2012, confirmed the proposal and demanded duty. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee has preferred an appeal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeals) as well as the Tribunal concurrently held that fraud has been committed and the benefit under the licence was obtained and therefore, the appellant cannot plead any equity in their favour. In support of such contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of Friends Trading Co. vs. Union of India reported in 2011 (267) E.L.T. 33 (P & H). 9.We have heard Mr.S.Kirshnaanadh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10.The first aspect of the matter, which has to be considered, is with regard to the interpretation sought to be given to Section 28 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 13.Furthermore, the show cause notice has been issued invoking Section 28(1) of the Act, which is well within the period of six months from the date on which the offence was deducted and the licence was cancelled by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. Therefore, the power of the Customs Authority to initiate action shall at best commenced from the date on which the offence report is received by them and not earlier. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee in this regard, is rejected. 14.So far as the decision in the case of Sampath Raj Dugar (supra) is concerned, it was totally on different facts and circumstances and cannot lend any support to the case of the assessee. 15.So far as the decision in Binani Ceme....