Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

COMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) BOMBAY versus M/S. HICO ENTERPRISES

Decided
29 April 2008
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 1 · 2008 INSC 537
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

. ~ Dr. AR.IJ!T PASAYAT,J. Heard.

p. 2, margin E

·. Challenge in this appeal isJo the order passed by Customs, · ·Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zohal Bench, Mumbai (i~ s_ho_rf'CESTAT') allowing the appeal filed by the appellan.t. . . · Background_ facts in a nutshell a~e as follows: ' · . Appellant acquired and/or i:>urch·ased transferable Value Based Advance Licenses (in short"'VAB.AL') including a license dated 19.1.1993-94 Issued in the name of M/s. Am"ar Taran Exports, New Delhi. Same was purchased on 20.4.1994. Appellant on the basis of that imported consignment vide Bill of Entry

p. 2, margin E

. no. 881 dated 30.3.1994. Same was allowed duty free allowance. By show cause notice dated· 04.03.1999 appellant was ~~ ~ called upon to show cause why an amount of Rs. 16, 7 4, 702/- could not be recovered and demanded in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the 'Act') for alleged contravention of certain conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus dated 19.05.1992. Noticee denied the allegations. However, Commissioner of Customs (Import) confirmed the demand along with interest and penalty of Rupees One lakh. 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. As the goods w_ere not available penalties of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 1 lakh were levied under Section 112 (a) of the Act.

pp. 2–3, margin G

In view of divergence of views, the matter was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal.

p. 3, margin C

The Tribunal inter alia held as follows: "Hence, the satisfaction arrived at in the above manner is final and binding on the customs department. The Customs department cannot compel the appellants impqrter, who are the transferee, to once again prove that the export obligation has been fulfilled by the original licence-holder in accordance with the notification aRd with9ut availing input stage credit" "The transferee cannot be called upon to fulfill the condition (v) (a) of the Notification No. 203/92-Cus. It is the original licencee, who has to satisfy the above referred condition, but-not the transferee of the licence. In the result, the reference is answered accordingly".

p. 3, margin C

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.

p. 3, margin F

It is seen that in view of the fact that in the show cause notice issued on 4.3.1999, there was no reference to the alleged infraction of M/s. Amar Taran Exports, the transferor of the license in question, the judgment of the CESTAT does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. The appeal is dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 3, margin G