{"id":157032,"date":"2008-09-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-05-27T19:01:08","modified_gmt":"2014-05-27T13:31:08","slug":"commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad<\/div>\n
               TAX CASES No.13 OF 2001\n\nAgainst   the   order   No.   646-Cal\/2000   dated\n22.5.2000 passed by Member (Judicial) of Custom,\nExcise & Gold (Control)Appellate Tribunal in\nAppeal No. C-464\/99 arising out of the order in\nappeal   122\/Pat\/Cus\/Appeal\/99   dated   24.8.1999\npassed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Customs &\nCentral Excise, Patna.\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PATNA------------Appellant\n                       Versus\nDWARIKA PRASAD AGARWAL--------------------Respondent<\/pre>\n
                TAX   No.24 oF   2001<\/p>\n
Against   the   order    no.A-360\/Kol\/2001   dated
\n30.5.2001 passed by Member (Judicial) of Customs,
\nExcise and Gold (Control)Appellate Tribunal,
\nEastern Bench,Kolkata in appeal No. C-18 of 2001
\narising   out    of   order    in   original   No.
\n8\/CC\/ADJ\/2000 dated 16.11.2000 passed by the
\nCommissioner of Customs,Patna.<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER, COSTOM DEPARTMENT,———Appellant
\nGOVERNMENT OF INDIA.\n<\/p>\n
                      Versus
\nKRISHNA BAHADUR CHHATYIIYA————–Respondent<\/p>\n
                TAX   No.25 oF   2001<\/p>\n
Against    the   order    No.A-359\/Kol\/2001    dated
\n30.5.2001    passed   by    Member   (Judicial)   of
\nCustoms,Excise    and   Gold   (Control)   Appellate
\nTribunal, in Appeal No. C-17\/2001 arising out of
\norder   in   original    No.   8\/CC\/ADJ\/2000   dated
\n16.11.2000    passed   by    the   Commissioner   of
\nCustoms,Patna<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER.CUSTOM DEPARTMENT————Appellant
\n                      Versus
\nVIJAY SINGH DAGA————————Respondent<\/p>\n
                TAX   No.26 oF   2001<\/p>\n
Against the order No.A-362\/Kol\/2001 dt. 30.5.2001
\npassed by Member (Judicial) of Customs, Excise
\nand Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern
\nBench, Kolkata in Appeal No. C-20\/2001 arising
\n                           2<\/span><\/p>\n
out of order in original no. 8\/CC\/ADJ\/2000 dt.
\n16.11.2000   passed by  the   Commissioner  of
\nCustoms,Patna.\n<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER, CUSTOM DEPARTMENT——–Appellant
\n                      Versus
\nJITENDRA KUMAR JAT———————–Respondent<\/p>\n
                TAX   No.27 oF   2001<\/p>\n
Against   the  order   NBo.   A-358\/Kol\/2001   dt.
\n30.5.2001 passed by Member (Judicial) of Customs,
\nExcise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in
\nAppeal No. C-16\/2001 arising out of order in
\noriginal   No.  8\/CC\/ADJ\/2000   dated   16.11.2000
\npassed by the Commissioner of Customs,Patna.<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER, CUSTOM DEPARTMENT———-Appellant
\n                      Versus
\nSMT.KAMALA DEVI BAID——————–Respondent<\/p>\n
                TAX   No.6 oF    2002<\/p>\n
Against the order No.S-342,A-364\/Kol\/2001 dated
\n30.5.2001 passed by Member (Judicial) of Customs,
\nExcise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, in
\nAppeal No.C-265\/2000 arising out of order in
\nappeal     No.166\/Patna\/Cus\/appeal\/2000     dated
\n12.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs
\nand Central Excise(Appeals),Patna.<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER, CUSTOM DEPARTMENT———–Appellant
\n                      Versus
\nVIKASH AGARWAL————————–Respondent<\/p>\n
                TAX   No.50 oF   2002<\/p>\n
Against   the   order   No.A-1352\/Kol\/2001  dated
\n20.12.2001 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold
\n(Control) Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench,
\nKolkata     by Member (Judicial)       and Member
\n(Technical) in appeal No. C- 502\/2001;<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER, CUSTOM DEPARTMET————Appellant
\n                      Versus
\nM\/S SUSHIL DAGGA, MANAGING DIRECTOR——Respondent<\/p>\n
                TAX   No.53 oF   2002
\n                                   3<\/span><\/p>\n
 Against the order No. A-1351\/Kol\/2001 dated
\n 20.12.2001 passed by the Customs Excise and Gold
\n (Control) Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench,
\n Kolkata comprising Member (Judicial) and Member
\n (Technical) in appeal No.C-501\/2001.<\/p>\n
COMMISIONER , CUSTOM DEPARTMENT———-Appellant
\n                      Versus
\nM\/S BIKANER ASSAM ROADLINES INDIA LTD——-Respondent<\/p>\n
For the Appellants:- Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
\nFor the Respondents:- Mr. Birju Prasad,      Advocate<\/p>\n
                        P R E S E N T<\/p>\n
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KUMAR PRASAD<\/p>\n
      THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN<\/p>\n
Prasad & Ranjan,JJ:- Various quantity of betel nuts<\/p>\n
    were      seized by the Officers of the Directorate<\/p>\n
    of     Revenue     Intelligence         under      a     reasonable<\/p>\n
    belief    that     same      were      smuggled        into   India.<\/p>\n
    Proceedings for its confiscation were initiated<\/p>\n
    and    the    Deputy      Commissioner         confiscated       the<\/p>\n
    betel nuts and inflicted personal penalty upon<\/p>\n
    the    owners     thereof.    Owners appeals            before   the<\/p>\n
    Commissioner (Appeals) also failed. They carried<\/p>\n
    the matter in appeal further before the Customs,<\/p>\n
    Excise    and     Gold    (Control)         Appellate     Tribunal,<\/p>\n
    hereinafter       referred        to   as    the   Tribunal.     The<\/p>\n
    Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and<\/p>\n
    penalty      on   the    ground     that Custom         authorities
\n                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
 have failed to prove that “betel nuts were of<\/p>\n
 foreign       origin      and    they      were      imported<\/p>\n
 illegally.”\n<\/p>\n
            Aggrieved by the same, the Commissioner<\/p>\n
 of   Customs     has   preferred      these      applications<\/p>\n
 under   Section    130A    of   the     Customs    Act.   This<\/p>\n
 Court   by    order    dated    11.2.2003     directed     the<\/p>\n
 Tribunal to draw          statement of case and refer<\/p>\n
 the following questions of law for determination<\/p>\n
 in Tax Case No. 13 of 2001:-\n<\/p>\n
                    “(a) Whether the Tribunal
\n         without referring any of the evidence
\n         which has been relied upon by the
\n         original or appellate authority was
\n         justified in reversing the said order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    (b)  Whether   the   finding
\n         arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse
\n         in the sense that without adhering to
\n         the material evidence it has arrived
\n         at such a finding.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           Identical    questions      of   law    have    been<\/p>\n
drawn in other cases also.\n<\/p>\n
              Tribunal as directed drew the statement<\/p>\n
of case and forwarded the aforesaid questions of<\/p>\n
law for determination.\n<\/p>\n
               In order to establish that the betel<\/p>\n
nuts are of foreign origin the authority rely on<\/p>\n
the trade opinion.\n<\/p>\n
                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
                 Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, appearing on<\/p>\n
behalf    of     the    petitioner        submits      that    persons<\/p>\n
well versed in the trade having opined that betel<\/p>\n
nuts     were    of      foreign     origin,        there     was     no<\/p>\n
justification          for   the    Tribunal      to    reject      that<\/p>\n
opinion.\n<\/p>\n
                Mr. Birju Prasad, appears on behalf of<\/p>\n
the Opposite party.\n<\/p>\n
                We do not find any substance in the<\/p>\n
submission of Mr. Singh. It is not in dispute<\/p>\n
that betel nut is non-notified item and, as such,<\/p>\n
the onus to prove that the same is of foreign<\/p>\n
origin lies on Custom authority. It is further<\/p>\n
not the case that betel nuts available in the<\/p>\n
country are significantly different than those of<\/p>\n
foreign country. The contention that betel nuts<\/p>\n
of foreign origin are little bigger than what is<\/p>\n
available in the country itself will not lead to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that it is of foreign origin.                         In<\/p>\n
our    opinion,        in     absence      of     significant        and<\/p>\n
apparent        difference         between      the     betel       nuts<\/p>\n
available in this country and of foreign origin<\/p>\n
it    shall     be   difficult       to    come    to   a     definite<\/p>\n
finding that betel nuts are of foreign origin on<\/p>\n
the basis of trade-opinion. We hasten to add that
\n                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
trade-opinion may not be an expert opinion but<\/p>\n
opinion      based     on    long      experience      in    the     trade<\/p>\n
considering significant difference in the items<\/p>\n
of Indian origin and foreign origin may be of<\/p>\n
persuasive value and may not be thrown out only<\/p>\n
on     the   ground     that      trade       opinion       is    not    an<\/p>\n
expert-opinion.              If       there     are         significant<\/p>\n
differences in shape, size, taste etc, of betel<\/p>\n
nuts    of    Indian    origin         than    the    betel       nuts   of<\/p>\n
foreign origin the person in trade may form an<\/p>\n
opinion that it is of foreign origin which in the<\/p>\n
facts of a given case may be accepted. However in<\/p>\n
the present case we find that the trade opinion<\/p>\n
is     not     based        on    any     significant            decisive<\/p>\n
difference.       In that view of the matter, we are<\/p>\n
of the opinion that betel nuts directed to be<\/p>\n
confiscated cannot be said with certainty to be<\/p>\n
of foreign origin.\n<\/p>\n
             Accordingly         our    answer        to    substantial<\/p>\n
question no.(a) formulated is in affirmative and<\/p>\n
it is held that in the facts and circumstances of<\/p>\n
the case the Tribunal was justified in reversing<\/p>\n
the     order     of        original          and     the        appellate<\/p>\n
authority.\n<\/p>\n
                                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
        In view of aforesaid, the answer to second<\/p>\n
question No.(b) is also in the negative and we<\/p>\n
hold that the finding arrived at by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
is based on sound principle and cannot be said to<\/p>\n
be perverse.\n<\/p>\n
        To put the record straight, it is worth<\/p>\n
mentioning         here   that       a     large    number      of    cases<\/p>\n
involving the same issue i.e. Tax Case No. 68 of<\/p>\n
2002 (Commissioner of Central Excise, Patna Vs.<\/p>\n
M\/s    SCI    Sheo    Shankar            Chemical       Industry      India<\/p>\n
Ltd.),Tax      Case       No.       69    of     2002    (Commissioner,<\/p>\n
Customs Department Govt. Of India vs. Shri                                Devi<\/p>\n
Shankar       Tiaway)          and        Tax     Case    No.        54     of<\/p>\n
2002(Commissioner              of        Custom,    Patna    Vs.          Pyus<\/p>\n
Chakrabarty,         Prop.      Pijus           Trading    Co.,),         have<\/p>\n
been    dismissed         by    order           dated    13.9.2006        and<\/p>\n
8.9.2006 by a Division Bench of this Court.<\/p>\n
             Tax     cases           stand          disposed          off\n\naccordingly.\n\n                                (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,J.)\n\n\n\n                                     (Dr.Ravi Ranjan,J.)\n\n\n\nPatna High Court\n<\/pre>\n
Dated the 18th of September,2008
\nA.Kumar\/NAFR\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Patna High Court Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 Author: Chandramauli Kumar Prasad TAX CASES No.13 OF 2001 Against the order No. 646-Cal\/2000 dated 22.5.2000 passed by Member (Judicial) of Custom, Excise & Gold (Control)Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. C-464\/99 arising out of the order in appeal 122\/Pat\/Cus\/Appeal\/99 dated 24.8.1999 passed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-157032","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-patna-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-05-27T13:31:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-27T13:31:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1190,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Patna High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-27T13:31:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-05-27T13:31:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-27T13:31:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008"},"wordCount":1190,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Patna High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008","name":"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-27T13:31:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-custom-departmen-vs-vikash-agarwal-on-18-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner, Custom Departmen vs Vikash Agarwal on 18 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157032","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=157032"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/157032\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=157032"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=157032"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=157032"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}