TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 448
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Director General of Foreign Trade [DGFT] which was manipulated and registered in ICD Patparganj. The manipulation was later discovered during investigation. The appellant does not dispute that the licence was manipulated and registered. Its defence is that that it had no knowledge of the manipulation. The matter was investigated and a Show Cause Notice [SCN] dated 21.11.2019 was issued to the appellant and to others and the proposals in the SCN were confirmed by the Joint Commissioner in his order and upheld in the impugned order. The relevant findings in the impugned order in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.9 are reproduced below: "5.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case as well as submissions made by the appellant. Nothing has been represented by the Respondent Department. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the appeal as per records and submissions of the Appellant. 5.2. As regards the issue of time-limitation factor in issuance/service of SCN, it is observed that Section 28(4) of the Act, provides as under: (4) Where any duty has not been (levied or not paid or has been short-levied or short-paid) or erroneously refunded, or interest payable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e SCNs are issued under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Cases involving duty amount of more than Rs. 5 lakhs but upto Rs. 50 lakhs are to be adjudicated by the officers of the rank of Additional/Joint Commissioner. Hence, the impugned notice has been issued by the proper officer. It is also observed that the contentions of the appellant in this matter are based on an erroneous observation that the impugned notice has been issued by the Dy. Commissioner [SIIB). Dy. Commissioner [SIIB] has only endorsed the copies of impugned notice and the same has been issued by the Joint Commissioner, ICD Tughlakabad [Import], New Delhi, who is proper officer to adjudicate the case. 5.4. The main issue to be decided in the instant case is as to whether the duty is demandable in the instant case, by invoking extended period of limitation or not. It is an admitted fact that the scrips have been wrongly/fraudulently registered in the instant case and such fraudulently registered scrips have then been used by the appellant to discharge their duty liability. Nowhere in the submissions made by the appellant, it has been contended that the allegation of fraudulent registration of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to take requisite precautions to find out about the Renuineness of the DEPB licenses/Scrips which they purchased, would have a bearing on the imposition of the penalty, and has nothing to do with the duty liability. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has upheld the demand of duty in such cases, by invoking extended period of limitation. 5.6. As regards penalty u/s section 114A, it is observed that penalty is imposable under section 114A, upon the person who is liable to pay duty, equal to the duty amount, where duty has not been levied or short levied by reason of collusion, or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Hence, penalty u/s 114A has been rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority and no respite from the same can be granted to the appellant. In the case of TATA MOTORS LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) MUMBAI [2019-TIOL-1201CESTAT-MUM], the Hon'ble Tribunal has held that the ingredients for invoking extended period of limitation under Section 28 and for imposition of mandatory penalty under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 are identical. Once the extended period was held invocable under Section 28, penalty under Section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the same fraudulently, from 0510338794 to 051033879. 5.9 In view of the above discussion and findings, I do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the appellant." 3. Learned counsels for the appellant submitted that the scrip was obtained by the appellant in good faith for a consideration and was therefore, not in any way responsible for the manipulation and in such circumstances, the duty could not be confirmed nor interest could be levied or penalty imposed on the appellant. 4. Shri M.K. Shukla, learned authorized representative appearing for the department, however, submitted that the issue involved in these appeals has been decided by a division bench of this Tribunal in M/s Mercedes Benz India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi [Customs Appeal No. 52009 of 2018 decided on 09.01.2020] Learned authorized representative, therefore, submitted that the appeals should be dismissed. 5. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorized representative appearing for the department have been considered. 6. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department is correct in his submission that th....