TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of "Indian Cane White Sugar" under Bill of Export No. 08/EXP/RAN/DFIA/07 dated 14.04.2007 to M/s. Ornate Services Ltd., Bangladesh under DFIA Scheme. After the export, the appellant realised that DFIA Scheme was not beneficial to them and wanted to avail the DEPB scheme instead. Accordingly, the appellant filed an application for conversion of the Bill of Export from DFIA scheme to DEPB scheme, which was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), West Bengal vide letter C. No. VIII(48)194/CUS/P/WB/2004/3176P dt. 28.02.2008, issued by AC (Tech). However, the appellant filed a fresh application for conversion of the Bill of Export from DFIA scheme to DEPB scheme before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Krishnanagar Customs Division on 30.12.2008 and the same was allowed by the Assistant Commissioner. Later, the said DEPB Licence no. 0210129701 dt. 29.07.2009 obtained by the appellant was sold to M/s. Hansraj Exim & Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. on 26.11.2009, who in turn sold the said license first to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. (unit Birla Copper) and then to M/s. Krishi Rasayan Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata. M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. availed duty exemption to the tune o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fiscated. (vi) Circular No. 04/2004 was contrary to various judgments of the Tribunal and it was rescinded vide Circular No. 36/2010, in which it was acknowledged that Circular No. 04/2004 was contrary to the law and various judgments of the Tribunal. The said Circular could not have been relied upon when it was contrary to the law. (vii) The office of the CC(P), Kolkata, after getting the whole issue examined in depth by its Special Investigation Unit, had treated the matter as closed as is evident vide letter II(8)17/SIU/CCP/WB/10/526(SIU) dt. 13.06.2011. On the above circumstances, the matter is to be treated as closed. (viii) The AC(Tech)'s letter conveying rejection of conversion by Commissioner without advancing reason for arriving at the said decision. The said letter is not an order signed by commissioner and thus can be treated as illegal, not to be taken as basis for alleging fraud or suppression. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgement in the case of M/s. Apple International vs Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva [2000(120) ELT 671 (Tribunal)], M/s. Lubrichem Industries Ltd vs CCE Bombay [1994 (73) ELT 257 (SC)] and other ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of India [1992 (58) ELT 163 (SC)]; 7. The Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 8. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 9. We observe that the appellant has exported goods under the DFIA scheme and later on, wanted to convert the Bill of Export from DFIA scheme to DEPB scheme. An application to this effect made before the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata was rejected by vide letter dated 28.02.2008 which was conveyed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Tech). As the letter was issued by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner and it was not an appealable order, the appellant did not file any appeal against the rejection of their application by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Kolkata. Later, the appellant filed a fresh application for conversion of the said Bill of Export from DFIA scheme to DEPB scheme before the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Krishnanagar Division on 30.12.2008 and the same was allowed. Consequently, the appellant has obtained the DEPB Licence No. 0210129701 dated 29.07.2009. 10. We observe that the DRI had taken up the investigation on the ground that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out payment of customs duties, the Show Cause Notice dated 08.10.2012 has proposed imposition of penalties under Section 112(a)(ii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. The present appeal deals only with the penalties imposed on the appellant. 12.1. We observe that Section 114AA of the Customs Act which deals with false statement in a document and fabricated documents. We observe that no such documents could be identified in this case. Thus, we observe that penalty u/s 114AA is not applicable in this case, since the appellant is not a party in the matter of import and no document was filed by them. We also observe that the order of conversion from DFIA scheme to DEPB has been accepted by the Commissioner (Preventive). Further it was held that the conversion of DFIA shipping bill to DEPB shipping bill was legal as it is evident from the letter dated 13th June, 2011 forwarded to the DRI. Thus, we hold that no penalty imposable on the appellant under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 and hence we set aside the same. 12.2. Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 112(a), we observe that there was no dispute regarding exportation of....