Senior India Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court allowed the present batch of fifteen Appeals filed by Senior India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning limitation in appeals arising from refund proceedings involving pressure relief valves. Fourteen Appeals arose from Final Order Nos. 59757-59770/2024 dated 13.11.2024, as modified by Miscellaneous Order Nos. 50837-50850/2025 dated 22.08.2025, while CUSAA 75/2026 arose from Final Order No. 50017/2026 dated 07.01.2026. The Court considered whether the principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 could benefit the Appellant after it had pursued refund proceedings under Section 27 of the Customs Act in reliance upon the then-binding jurisdictional position in ITC Limited. The pressure relief valves had earlier been cleared under CTI 8481 40 00, but from September 2018 the Appellant declared them under CTI 8409 99 41 and paid duty at a higher rate. Fourteen Bills of Entry were assessed between September 2018 and February 2019, followed by two Bills of Entry dated 15.03.2019 and 06.05.2019. Relying on Micromax Informatics Limited and Aman Medical Products Limited, the Appellant filed two refund applications on 26.08.2019 within the one-year period under Section 27. The Supreme Court subsequently decided ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV on 18.09.2019, holding that a refund claim could not be entertained unless the assessment or self-assessment was first modified in an appeal under Section 128 or another provision of the Customs Act. The Appellant thereafter invoked Section 149 on 24.09.2019 and sought to keep the refund proceedings in abeyance. The Delhi High Court held that the period preceding 26.08.2019 was not being excluded merely as time spent prosecuting an original refund proceeding; rather, in the peculiar transition caused by ITC Limited, that period could not be treated as ordinary inaction because the Appellant was entitled under the binding jurisdictional law then prevailing to invoke Section 27 as an independent remedy. The period thereafter was held excludable on the principles underlying Section 14 up to 02.06.2020. The Court further held that the initial sixty-day period under Section 128, calculated from 02.06.2020, fell within the period covered by Section 6 of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 read with Notification G.S.R. 601(E) dated 30.09.2020, which extended the time for completion or compliance to 31.12.2020. Accordingly, Appeal Nos. 728-741/2020 filed on 31.08.2020 were held to be within limitation. In CUSAA 28/2026, the Court separately held that Appeal No. 139/2019, filed on 06.06.2019 against Bill of Entry No. 3119681 dated 06.05.2019, was filed within twenty-eight days and was ex facie within the period prescribed under Section 128. The Court set aside the specified CESTAT orders and the Order-in-Appeal dated 05.05.2022 insofar as the relevant appeals had been rejected on limitation. Appeal Nos. 728-741/2020 were restored to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for decision on merits without reopening limitation, while Customs Appeal No. 52100/2022 was restored to the CESTAT for adjudication on merits. The Court expressly declined to express any opinion on the classification decision contained in Final Order No. 50018/2026 dated 07.01.2026.
Cases Discussed
- ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV, (2019) 17 SCC 46
- Aman Medical Products Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, 2010 (250) E.L.T. 30 (Del.)
- Micromax Informatics Limited v. Union of India, 2016 (335) E.L.T. 446 (Del.)
- M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, (2015) 7 SCC 58
- Vishal Video and Appliances Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import), decided on 24.01.2025
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
