HomeIndirect TaxesCBI Court Sentences Two in 2003 Duty Drawback Fraud Case, Orders Rs....

CBI Court Sentences Two in 2003 Duty Drawback Fraud Case, Orders Rs. 9 Lakh Compensation to AEPC

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The CBI Court at Rouse Avenue District Court (RADC), New Delhi sentenced two individuals — Rajender Sharma and Satyapal Singh — in a 2003 case involving fraudulent duty drawback claims amounting to over Rs. 14 lakh. Both were also directed to pay a total compensation of ₹9 lakh to the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC), New Delhi.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had registered the case on December 30, 2003, against Rajender Sharma, proprietor of M/s Siddharthi, and unidentified officials of AEPC, Ministry of Textiles, for allegedly manipulating documents to falsely claim duty drawbacks for non-existent exports of garments. The conspiracy was carried out in collaboration with co-accused Satyapal Singh.

The investigation revealed that Sharma had illegally transferred his export license to another person and fabricated export documents to fraudulently claim duty drawback benefits totaling Rs. 14,01,828. Both Sharma and Singh were chargesheeted by the CBI on June 29, 2005, and subsequently admitted guilt during trial proceedings under plea bargaining.

Following their admission, the court convicted Rajender Sharma and sentenced him to the duration of custody already undergone — 75 days — along with a fine of ₹6,000. Co-accused Satyapal Singh was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, also with a fine of Rs. 6,000.

In addition to the penal sentences, the court ordered both convicts to jointly pay ₹9 lakh in compensation to AEPC, to be disbursed in three equal installments of ₹3 lakh each within six months from the date of judgment.

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

CERSAI-Registered Secured Creditor Has Priority Over MVAT Dues: Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Attachment on Auctioned Property

The Bombay High Court has held that a security interest registered with Central Registry...

VCES Declaration Of BIS Can’t Be Rejected When Pre- and Post-2012 Service Tax Regimes Involve Different ‘Issues’: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, has allowed the...

Missing Original Invoices Or Address Can’t Justify Denial of CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed...

Customs Dept. Can’t Reject Declared Transaction Value Solely on DRI Alert Without Complying With R. 12: CESTAT

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has...

More like this

CERSAI-Registered Secured Creditor Has Priority Over MVAT Dues: Bombay High Court Quashes Tax Attachment on Auctioned Property

The Bombay High Court has held that a security interest registered with Central Registry...

VCES Declaration Of BIS Can’t Be Rejected When Pre- and Post-2012 Service Tax Regimes Involve Different ‘Issues’: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, has allowed the...

Missing Original Invoices Or Address Can’t Justify Denial of CENVAT Credit: CESTAT

The Kolkata Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has allowed...