Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesDelhi High Court Directs CESTAT to Hear Rs. 1.59 Crore Customs Dispute...

Delhi High Court Directs CESTAT to Hear Rs. 1.59 Crore Customs Dispute Despite 273-Day Delay Subject To Rs. 50K Cost

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi High Court has directed the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to hear a high-value customs duty dispute on merits, setting aside a 273-day delay in filing the appeal. 

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta has imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant as a condition for condonation.

The case pertains to the import of fabric consignments from China and Hong Kong in 2014–2015. The importer had sought amendments to the Bills of Entry to claim exemption benefits under Notification No. 30/2004-CX. However, customs authorities rejected the request, citing that the goods had already been cleared and assessments finalized.

While the firm challenged this before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the CESTAT, the latter dismissed the appeal on the ground of excessive delay and inadequate justification. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed almost nine months late and lacked a day-wise explanation.

In response, the High Court observed that procedural lapses should not defeat the cause of justice when no mala fides or deliberate delay is proven. It cited the substantial duty demand—approximately ₹1.59 crore, with an additional ₹4 lakh penalty—and emphasized the importance of adjudicating such matters on merits.

Referring to precedent, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in J.M. Ramachandra and Sons v. CEGAT and its own recent judgment in OVT India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, the Court stressed that “sufficient cause” must be assessed pragmatically and not with undue technicality.

The delay was thus condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 50,000 as cost to the Customs Department within four weeks. The appeal has been restored to its original position and is now scheduled to be heard by CESTAT on September 10, 2025.

Case Details

Case Title: M/S Siddhi Vinayak Importers Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Case No.: CUSAA 27/2024

Date:  23/07/2025

Counsel For  Petitioner: Shikha Sapra

Counsel For Respondent: Anurag Ojha, Sr. Standing Counsel 

Read More: Delhi High Court Directs Customs Dept. to Release Detained Jewellery to Passenger, Waives Warehousing Charges

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST Confiscation Order Passed Before Reply Deadline Invalid: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Rajkot Bench, has set aside a...

Incomplete E-Bike Kits Classifiable As Complete Vehicles, But Not Eligible For CKD Duty Concession: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

Wrong Death Date In Official Certificate Does Not Establish Cheating Or Forgery: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case 

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of furnishing an...

State Must Be Made Party Before Courts Impose Financial Liability; ₹10 Lakh Relief Granted To Retired Lecturer: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that impleading a government officer cannot substitute for formally...

More like this

GST Confiscation Order Passed Before Reply Deadline Invalid: GSTAT

The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Rajkot Bench, has set aside a...

Incomplete E-Bike Kits Classifiable As Complete Vehicles, But Not Eligible For CKD Duty Concession: CESTAT

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has held that...

Wrong Death Date In Official Certificate Does Not Establish Cheating Or Forgery: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case 

The Supreme Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of furnishing an...