M/S. Gulabdas & Co vs Commissioner Of Customs, ...
- CitationAppeal No.51/2011, dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excis
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal will not set aside an order against an appellant on the basis of a collusion or fabrication allegation where the authority has made no finding that the appellant colluded with the buyer to alter or fabricate the DFRC scrips or caused prejudice to Revenue, and the record does not show the appellant was instrumental in any change to the annexure; absent such an adverse finding against the appellant, the revenue-loss allegation cannot be sustained against it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.51/2011, dated 16.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
C/00022/2012
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.54/2011, dated dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
M/s. GULABDAS & CO. APPELLANT
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TIRUCHIRAPALLI RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri R.V. Shetty, Adv.
For the Respondent Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR)
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 17-04-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.
The precise question in this appeal is whether the appellant had colluded with the buyer of the DFRC scrips to make any alteration or fabrication thereto and cause prejudice to Revenue.
2. There is no finding by the authority as to the existence of above element being present in the case. Record also does not reveal whether the appellant was instrumental to make any changes to the annexure to the DFRC scrips. Department has not made any enquiry with the DGFT while the licence holder submitted the scrips for the purpose of clearance of the imports discharging the duty liability through scrips. The Public Notice No.47/2003, dated 11.06.2003 although issued very clear guidelines that the licence holder should present the lincence for registration at the time of import, the department did not find out whether the appellant deliberately acted to cause any injury to Revenue. In absence of any adverse finding against the appellants, both the appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 17-04-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 17.04.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing
Fair Order Typing 17.04.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
4 C/00021/2012 C/00022/2012
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free