Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Co. - Court Judgment |
| Customs |
| Supreme Court of India |
| May-08-2009 |
| Civil Appeal No. 645 of 2008 |
| Arijit Pasayat and; Mukundakam Sharma, JJ. |
| 2009(238)ELT387(SC); JT2009(8)SC296; 2009(8)SCALE540 |
| Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 28(1) and 111 |
| Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar |
| Ajay Kumar and Co. |
| P.V. Shetty,; S.K. Bagaria, Sr. Advs.,; Arvind K. Shukla |
| Appeal dismissed |
| From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2007 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Customs Appeal No. 17 of 2006 |
.....[dr. arijit pasayat & p. sathasivam, jj] independent witnesses - witnesses had no enmity with accused - they were not under control of police held, fact that they have revealed truth after a long time after seeing photos of accused cannot be a factor to discard their evidence. section 9 : identification of accused - murder case - two persons from lowest strata of society had shown courage to stand up, picked and identified accused persons - they had witnessed occurrence from close range -murder took place in broad day light held, there is no infirmity in identification of accused.section 27: recoveries and discoveries - criminal conspiracy and murder case - there had been recovery of material objects -investigator was able to locate std booth from where accused talked with others - this was discovered at the instance of known accused persons held, evidence of witness clearly proved recoveries and discoveries. indian penal code, 1890 sections 300 & 120-b:criminal conspiracy and murder - appellants allegedly conspired and assaulted deceased by knife and aruval evidence of two independent eye-witnesses was reliable - they had no enmity with appellants held, minor discrepancy..........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.....
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.
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. HICO Enterprises : 2008(228)ELT161(SC) similar view was taken. The appeal is dismissed.