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

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR versus M/S. AJAY KUMAR AND CO.

Decided
8 May 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 17 · 2009 INSC 757
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

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 Tribl,mal, New Delhi (in short 'CESTAT') dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant.

p. 18, margin A

2

Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Respondent 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 Mis. Parker Industries. By show cause notices dated 30.5.2002, 12.6.2002 and 26.7.2002 Respondent was called upon to show cause why an amount of Rs.12,45, 17 4/- could not be recovered and demanded in terms. of proviso to Section 28(1) bf 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.

p. 18, margin C

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.

p. 18, margin G

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 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AMRITSAR v. AJAY 19 KUMAR AND CO. Mis. Parker Industries. the transferor of the license in question. The Judgments of the CEST AT and the High Court do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. It is to be noted that Commissioner of Customs (Import) Bombay v. Mis. HICO Enterµnses [2008 (11) SCC 720) similar view was taken. The appeal dismissed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No . . 2529 of 2008. DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. In view of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import) Bombay v. ·Mis. HICO Enterprises [2008 (11) SCC 720), this appeal deserves to be dismissed which we direct accordingly. B.B.B. Appeals dismissed.

pp. 18–19, margin G