Dismissed¶18

Dipali Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs

Bombay HC12 Mar 2025CUAPP/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Customs Appeal No. 57 of 2024, Dipali Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., decided 9 April 2025: appeal against CESTAT Mumbai remand order dated 19 June 2024 (penalty determinable under Section 112(a) or 112(b), Customs Act 1962) dismissed as withdrawn; Commissioner had meanwhile imposed penalty under Section 112(b) on remand; appellant granted liberty to challenge Commissioner's remand order before the appropriate forum/Appellate Authority; no merits opined upon; all issues expressly kept open on both sides.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Commissioner (on remand) before the appropriate forum. ¶18

Dipali Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

15 cuapp57-24.doc

¶2

Digitally signed by TRUSHA TRUSHA TUSHAR TUSHAR MOHITE MOHITE Date: 2025.04.09 19:00:09 +0530

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.57 OF 2024

¶5

Dipali Electronics Pvt.Ltd. .. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr.Bharat Raichandani (V.C.) a/w Ms.Ankita Vashishtha and Mr.Aman Mishra i/b M/s.UBR Legal, Advocates for the Appellant.

¶10

Ms.Sangeeta Yadav i/b Mr.Vijay Kanthariya, Advocate for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: APRIL 9, 2025

¶12

P. C.

¶13

The above Appeal takes exception to the Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 19^th June 2024. By the impugned Order, CESTAT remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Customs to determine whether penalty could be imposed on the Appellant under Section 112(a) or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

¶14

Page 1 of 2 APRIL 9, 2025

¶15

Mohite

¶16

15 cuapp57-24.doc

¶17

We are informed that after the filing of this Appeal, the Commissioner has already decided the matter on remand and imposed penalty on the Appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. In these facts, Mr.Raichandani, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant, on instructions, stated that he would like to withdraw the above Appeal and challenge the order passed by the Commissioner before the Appellate Authority.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid statement, the above Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Commissioner (on remand) before the appropriate forum. It is needless to clarify that we have not opined on the merits and all issues are expressly kept open on both the sides.

¶19

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶20

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶21

Page 2 of 2 APRIL 9, 2025

¶22

Mohite

Dipali Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipali Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nidhi Mukesh Agarwal vs State of Maharashtra

S M Wairkar vs The Union of India

Nitesh Bhikhubhai Patel vs The Union of India

Pr Commissioner of Customs General vs A.B Paul and Co.

Commissioner of Customs Ns General Jnch vs Apm Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. Annex

Jayesh Sanghrajka vs The Commissioner of Custom and Excise Mumbai III