LexM/S. MUNJAL SHOWA LTD versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (DELHI – IV)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 893 M/S. MUNJAL SHOWA LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE (DELHI – IV) (Civil Appeal No. 2576 of 2010) SEPTEMBER 23, 2022 [M. R. SHAH AND KRISHNA MURARI, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962 – Exemption from payment of Customs Duty availed on the basis of forged/fake documents – Knowledge of fraud – Effect on duty liability vis-à-vis imposition of the penalty – Order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal confirming the demand of Customs Duty from the appellant(s)- buyer(s) – Appeal, dismissed by High Court – Held: The moment, the appellant(s) was/were informed about the fake DEPB licenses, they immediately paid the Customs Duty, may be under protest to avoid any further coercive action – The fact remains that the DEPB licenses/Scripps on which the exemption was availed by the appellant(s) was/were found to be forged, therefore, there shall be a duty liability and the same was rightly confirmed by Department, as also by the Tribunal and the High Court – On the principle that fraud vitiates everything and such forged/fake DEPB licenses/ Scripps are void ab initio, it cannot be said that the Department acted illegally in invoking the extended period of limitation – Department justified in invoking the same – Further, whether the buyer(s) had knowledge about the fraud or the forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scripps and whether the appellant(s)-buyer(s) was/were to take requisite precautions to find out about the genuineness of the forged/fake DEPB licenses/Scripps which they purchased, would have a bearing on the imposition of the penalty, and has nothing to do with the duty liability – In the present case, the matter w.r.t the penalty proceedings has been remanded by the Tribunal to the adjudicating authority, which is pending –Adjudicating authority to complete the penalty proceedings. M/s. Munjal Showa Limited v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Delhi (IV) Faridabad) Decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh [2022] 5 S.C.R. 893 893 A B C D E F G H 894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 5 S.C.R. in CUSAP No. 27 of 2008, Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Vs. Aafloat Textiles India Private Limited and Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 18: [2009] 2 SCR 490 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2009] 2 SCR 490 referred to Para 5.1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2576 of 2010. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2008 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.U.S.A.P. No. 27 of 2008. With Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2011. Somesh Arora, P. K. Ravi, Chinth Kumar, Abhishek Jain, Rajesh Kumar, Rahul Krishna, Satyajit A. Desai, Satya Kam Sharma, Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Ms. Anagha S. Desai, Siddharth Gautam, Advs. for the Appellant. Vikramjit Banerji, ASG, M. K. Maroria, P. V. Yogeswaran, Siddhartha Sinha, Nikhil Majithia, Tathagat Sharma, Ramam Yadav, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 01.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.U.S.A.P. No. 27 of 2008 by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant – assessee – M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act and has confirmed the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) confirming the demand of Customs Duty with interest, the original assessee - M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 2576 of 2010. 1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CUSAP No. 1 of 2011 by which the Division A B C D E F G H 895 Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in Custom Appeal No. 576 of 2006 by which the Tribunal has confirmed the demand of Customs Duty with interest, the original assessee – M/s. Friends Trading Co. has filed the present Civil Appeal No. 5608 of 2011. Civil Appeal No. 2576 of 2010 2. That the appellant herein – M/s. Munjal Showa Ltd. imported consignments through ICD, Ballabgarh using Transfer Release Advices (hereinafter referred to as “TRAs”) issued by the Bombay Custom House. On verification, it was found that the DEPB Licensees on the basis of which TRAs were issued, were not genuine. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.