C/12310/2018 — Globus Industries & Services Ltd vs Kandla

Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad

REGIONAL BENCH-COURT NO. 3

Customs Appeal No. 12310 of 2018- DB

(Arising out of OIA-KDL-CUSTM-000-APP-06-09-18-19 dated 04/05/2018 passed by Commissioner ( Appeals ) Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax- AHMEDABAD)

Globus Industries & Services Ltd ……..Appellant Villagr- Lakhigam, P.O. Dahej,
Taluka- Vagra, Bharuch, Gujarat
VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs-Kandla ……Respondent Custom House, Near Balaji Temple, Kandla, Gujarat

WITH

(i) Customs Appeal No. 12311 of 2018- DB (Globus Industries & Services Ltd) (ii) Customs Appeal No. 12312 of 2018- DB (Globus Industries & Services Ltd) (iii) Customs Appeal No. 12313 of 2018- DB (Globus Industries & Services Ltd)

APPEARANCE: Shri Manish Jain, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Himanshu P Shrimali, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL), MR. RAMESH NAIR HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL), MR. C L MAHAR

                   Final Order No.11736-11739/2024 

DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION: 08.08.2024 RAMESH NAIR
In these appeals the demand of Custom duty was raised on the ground that the appellant have cleared the imported goods under Release order issued against DEPB Scrips by the DGFT. The case of the department is that the DEPB Release Scrips against advice was issued fraudulently therefore, the import made on the basis of Release advice which is issued on the basis of fraudulent DEPB is liable for custom duty.

2 | P a g e C / 1 2 3 1 0 - 1 2 3 1 3 / 2 0 1 8 - D B

Shri Manish Jain, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that there is nothing on record that the DEPB Scrips or as the case may be Release advice has been cancelled by the DGFT. Therefore since the DGFT has not held the release advice issued by it, the import made on the basis of said Release Advice is legal and correct and no custom duty can be demanded. He placed reliance on the following judgments:-  Titan Medical System Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi- 2002 (11) TMI 108 (S.C.)  Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.- 2023 (2) TMI 402- Delhi High Court  Jeena & company Vs. Union of India -2024 (1) TMI 834 Madras High Court

Shri Himanshu P Shrimali, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. On the query from the bench about the status of DEPB Scrips and/or release advice issued thereunder, whether the same is cancelled or otherwise. Learned AR submits that despite making correspondences no confirmation has been received that whether the said DEPB Scrips and/or Release Advice are cancelled or not.

We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the entire argument of the Learned Counsel is that since the DEPB Scrips and/or Release Advice has not been cancelled by the DGFT the same stand valid and import thereunder cannot be questioned. In these circumstances, we find that the case of the

3 | P a g e C / 1 2 3 1 0 - 1 2 3 1 3 / 2 0 1 8 - D B

department is that the DEPB Scrips was obtained fraudulently therefore any import made on that basis cannot be extended the benefit of duty free clearance under DEPB Scheme. However, despite the direction from this Tribunal, the Revenue could not produce the status report of the DEPB license/release advice issued there under. Therefore, the matter needs to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for ascertaining status of DEPB License/release advice issued by DGFT and thereafter to pass a fresh order on all the issues.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh de-novo order, keeping in mind our above observation. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
(Operative portion pronounced in the open court)

(RAMESH NAIR) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(C.L.MAHAR) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Raksha