COMMR.OF CUSTOMS vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR & CO

PDF · subscribers
C.A. No.-000645-000645 - 2008Supreme Court08 May 20093 pages
For Petitioner: B. KRISHNA PRASADFor Respondent: UMESH KUMAR KHAITAN
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Tribunal and High Court held that the demand was barred by limitation and that no role was ascribed to the respondent in the show cause notice. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in these conclusions.

What were the facts?

The appellant purchased transferable Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) licenses. Show cause notices were issued to recover an amount, alleging infraction by the original license holder. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the demand for recovery of DEPB amount was barred by limitation and if the respondent was properly implicated in the show cause notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28(1),Section 111

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2008 Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar …Appellant Versus M/s. Ajay Kumar & Co. ...Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court upholding the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short 'CESTAT') dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

Appellant acquired and/or purchased transferable Duty Entitlement Pass Book (in short the ‘DEPB’) including licenses dated 6.11.2000 and 20.11.2000 issued in the name of M/s. Parker Industries. By show cause notices dated 30.5.2002, 12.6.2002 and 26.7.2002 appellant was called upon to show cause why an amount of Rs.12,45,174/- could not be recovered and demanded in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act'). Noticee denied the allegations. However, Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty. Same was held to be jointly payable by the original license holder and licensee. It was held that goods were liable in confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by respondent holding the demand to be barred by limitation. The High Court upheld the view. 3. In this appeal challenge is to the aforesaid conclusions. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that no role was ascribed to it in the show cause notice. 2

4.

It is seen that in view of the fact that in the show cause notices, there was no reference to the alleged infraction of M/s. Parker Industries, the transferor of the license in question. The judgments of the CESTAT and the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. It is to be noted that in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Bombay v. M/s. HICO Enterprises [2008 (11) SCC 720] similar view was taken. The appeal is dismissed. ………………………..………....J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) …………………………………..J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, May 8, 2009 3

More judgments on Section 28(1)

All 47 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →