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