In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh C.U.S.A.P. No. 23 of 2006 Date of Decision: 27.01.2009 Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar …Appellant Versus M/s Fertichem India …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA Present: Mr. Ashwinie Kumar Bansal, Advocate, for the Revenue-Appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The revenue has filed the instant appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity, ‘the Customs Act’), by challenging order dated 16.6.2006, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’). The revenue has sought to raise following substantial questions of law:- “(a) Whether the DEPB’s obtained by fraud, collusion, willful mis-statement and suppression of facts by the exporter are non-est and void ab-initio? (b) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in allowing C.U.S.A.P. No. 23 of 2006 the appeal of the respondent relying upon the decision in the case of HICO Enterprises Vs. CC 2005 (71) RLT (225) CESTAT LB whereas the said case law cited by the respondent is not applicable in the facts & circumstances of the present case and same in conflict with the law laid down by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 15278 of 2004- M/s Golden Tools International Vs. Joint Director as well as the law laid down 2001 AIR SC 1419 that originally a forgery would remain null and void forever? (c) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in allowing benefit of ab-initio cancelled DEPB scrips, to the importer, who availed benefit of DEPB credit when there was no valid DEPB to qualify for benefit in terms of Notification No. 34/97-Cus dated 07.04.97? Having heard learned counsel for the revenue-appellant we are of the considered view that the matter is not res integra. The controversy raised in the instant appeal has already been dealt with by a Division Bench of this Court in detail in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. M/s Vallabh Design Products, Ludhiana (C.U.S.A.P. No. 22 of 2006, decided on 3.4.2007). The revenue- appellant has also filed other similar appeals challenging various similar orders passed by the Tribunal, bearing CUSAP Nos. 13, 14, 2 C.U.S.A.P. No. 23 of 2006 15 and 17 of 2006. Vide judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner, Customs v. M/s Leader Valves Ltd. (CUSAP No. 15 of 2006, dated 15.3.2007), this Court has already dismissed the aforementioned appeals. In view of above, following the same principle and precedent, we also dismiss the instant appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (H.S. BHALLA) January 27, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 3