The Delhi High Court has directed the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Directorate of General GST Intelligence (DGGI), Customs Department and Central GST (CGST) to prepare SOP to ensure advance copies are served and counsels are appearing.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma has observed that the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that the instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
These appeals have been filed by the Appellant under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the Final Order passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT or Tribunal). In order to appreciate the contentions raised, the background in these appeals deserves to be captured.
The Appellant is a Company, incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in trading of electronic products such as mobile phones etc,. As a part of business activities, the Appellant had imported mobile handsets/cellular phones for which various bills of entry were filed during the years 2014-15 and 2015-16.
Read More: Indirect Tax Weekly Flashback: 26 January To 1 February 2025
The Appellant’s case is that it was deprived from claiming the tax benefit in respect of the above said imports in terms of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17 March, 2012, due to restrictions imposed by Circular No. 37/2001-Cus. dated 18th June 2001.
However, the issue of applicability of the Notification No. 06/2002-CE dated 01 March, 2002 (similar notification) on importers was settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SRF Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.)], which allowed the Appellant to claim the benefit under the said Notification dated 17 March, 2012.
Accordingly, the Appellant had sought refund of excess custom duty paid with respect to thirty-one bills of entry. The Appellant, for this purpose, had filed two refund applications before the Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) on 25th September, 2015 categorizing the thirty-one bills of entry into two batches consisting of 14 and 17 bills, respectively.
The refund applications were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner (Refunds) on the ground that the Appellant has not provided re-assessed bills of entry in respect of refund claims.
The Court had raised concerns with regard to the unnecessary delay caused by Customs Department in instructing their Standing Counsels to appear upon the advance copies being served.
The court has held that the registry shall ensure that whenever cases relating to Customs and GST are filed before the Court, the advance copies are served at the relevant email addresses. In addition, the Commissioner of Customs shall prepare an SOP as to the manner in which the Department shall ensure that the instructions are given to the nominated Counsels in the matter when advance copies are served.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S Vishal Video And Appliances Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs
Case No.: CUSAA 9/2025 & CM APPL. 1016/2025
Date: 24.01.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Yogendra Aldak
Counsel For Respondent: Aditya Singla
