TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 190
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were transferable in the market and a transferee-importer was entitled, under the above Notification, to utilise the certified credit for paying basic customs duty and surcharge on imports of non-restricted items of raw materials. The imports made by the appellants without payment of duty were on the strength of four DEPB scrips procured from the market. In early 2000, the Customs authorities, through investigation, found the DEPB scrips to be forged and fake and issued four show cause notices (SCNs) for recovering a total duty amount of Rs. 70,39,862/- from the appellants under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, holding the imported goods to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act and for imposing penalties on the party under Sections 112(a) and 114A of the Act. The appellants hotly contested the SCNs, maintaining that they had not violated any condition under the notification and hence they were entitled to the benefit of exemption and were not liable to any penal action. Ld. Commissioner of Customs who adjudicated the dispute found against the party and passed Order No. 37/2000, dated 25-5-2000 confirming the above demand of duty against them under Section 28(2)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d not been issued to M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd. or M/s. S.B. Agro (India) Ltd. and it was deposed by senior functionaries of these companies that they had not transferred any such licences to the appellants. It was also proved that the signatures shown as that of transferor in the transfer letters were forged and further that the bank accounts cited in the said letters, as the bank accounts of transferors, were bogus. The appellants stated under Section 108 of the Customs Act that they had purchased the licences through M/s. Classic International and M/s. James Enterprises and that the payments were made through banks. But further enquiries made with reference to the addresses of these two firms as seen in the bank records proved that the firms did not exist at such addresses. None of these investigative findings has been challenged by the appellants. We, therefore, uphold ld. Commissioner's finding that the licences were forged and fake. 5. The appellants' case now is that the DEPB scrips were duly verified and endorsed by the proper officer of Customs in accordance with the established procedure and, therefore, the benefit of credit of duty taken in good faith by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dorsed the scrips. We have examined this issue. A fake document is ab initio unlawful and void. Any amount of official action upon such a document cannot sanctify it or otherwise make it lawful. Such a document cannot give rise to any right or benefit in law. This is the legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla & Others, 2001 (4) SCC 342. In that case, the main issue which was considered by their Lordships, with reference to relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was as to whether a fake driving licence would get legally sanctified by reason of its renewal by the statutory authority. Their Lordships gave their ruling in Para 13 of their judgment as under : - "The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh [1994 ACJ 374 (P & H)] that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of Section 15 of the Act, propounds a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s agreed by the department (represented by Additional Solicitor-General) to be followed in Kuil Fireworks Industries (supra) also. Thus the Apex Court's decisions relied on by ld. Counsel are all decisions rendered by the Court on equitable considerations. This Tribunal cannot function like a court of equity and has got to strictly apply the principles of taxation within the parameters set by the statute. Moreover, equity will not work in favour of a party who plays fraud or seeks to eat the fruit of a fraudulent act committed by someone else. In the instant case, the appellants cannot even claim the sympathy of a court of equity as they were defrauding the Revenue by availing credit under forged documents. 10. In the SCNs, there was a proposal under Section 124 of the Customs Act to confiscate the imported goods under Section 111(o) of the Act. The adjudicating authority has found the goods liable to such confiscation. We do agree with this finding as we have found that the paramount condition under the notification was not fulfilled by the importer. However, we note, the adjudicating authority has not examined under Section 125 the question whether the goods were redeemabl....