Commissioner of Customs Nh III v. Unitech Inc.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2025CUAPP/58/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Customs appeals by Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-III / Custom NS III / Custom NH III) against CESTAT orders quashing penalties on Goyal Trading, Unitech Inc. and Gulab Fibres; disposed of under CBIC instructions dated 2 November 2023 as the aggregate amount (Rs. 7.5 lakhs) was below the Rs. 1 crore monetary limit for High Court appeals; clause 2 legal/recurring classification-refund exception held inapplicable to penalty quashing; questions of law left open; no costs; Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. (2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 587) and Hemant Bhai R. Patel (2003 (153) ELT 226) referred.

What did the court decide?

Appeals disposed of in terms of the CBIC instructions dated 2 November 2023 on monetary-limit grounds, leaving the questions of law open; no substantive relief to either side; no costs. ¶¶24

Commissioner of Customs Nh III vs Unitech Inc. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals disposed of in terms of the CBIC instructions dated 2 November 2023 on monetary-limit grounds, leaving the questions of law open; no substantive relief to either side; no costs.

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, the monetary amount involved in these appeals being below the Rs. 1 Crore limit prescribed by the CBIC instructions dated 2 November 2023 for the Revenue to file or pursue appeals before the High Courts, the appeals must be disposed of on monetary-limit grounds notwithstanding the Revenue's invocation of clause 2 (adverse judgments of a legal and/or recurring nature). +1 more

¶¶12

Court's answer

These appeals are impacted by the CBIC instructions dated 2 November 2023 and must be disposed of on the grounds of the monetary limits coupled with the policy of the appellants not to pursue such appeals.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

There being no formal direction for refund of the penalty amounts (any refund being only the logical consequence in the absence of a provision to the contrary), these are not the refund issues referred to in the CBIC instructions.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Clause 2 of the CBIC instructions refers to typical refund issues or those arising from resolution of classification issues in any assessment, which could have broad implications far beyond an individual assessee's case; it does not cover cases where the penalty imposed on an individual assessee is quashed, with or without specific directions for refunding the quashed penalty amount.ratio¶¶17
The questions of law raised in these appeals are expressly left open; disposal of the appeals on grounds of monetary limits may not be construed as the Court's approval or disapproval of the view taken by the Tribunal.ratio¶¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.) disposed of Customs Appeals Nos. 56, 58 and 59 of 2024 and 13 and 14 of 2025 (with Custom Appeal No. 50 of 2024 taken on board) filed by the Commissioner of Customs against Tribunal (CESTAT) orders quashing penalties imposed on the respondent assessees (Goyal Trading, Unitech Inc. and Gulab Fibres). The aggregate monetary stake did not exceed Rs. 7.5 lakhs, below the Rs. 1 crore monetary limit in the CBIC instructions dated 2 November 2023 for the Revenue to file or pursue appeals before the High Courts. Held: quashing of a penalty on an individual assessee is neither a refund issue nor a classification/refund issue of a legal and/or recurring nature under clause 2 of the instructions, so the monetary-limit policy governs. Questions of law were expressly left open, the disposal not to be construed as approval or disapproval of the Tribunal's view; no costs. Counsel's reliance on Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 587 and Hemant Bhai R. Patel, 2003 (153) ELT 226 was noted; both decisions were merely referred, not decided.

¶1

33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC

¶2

Digitally signed by PALLAVI PALLAVIMAHENDRAWARGAONKAR MAHENDRAWARGAONKARDate:2025.07.31 18:26:52 +0530

¶3

Pallavi

¶4

IN TH O	E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY RDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2024
Commissioner Versus	Of Customs Nhava Sheva-III …Appellant
Goyal Trading	…Respondent WITH CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2024
Commissioner	Of Customs Nhava Sheva-III ...Appellant
Versus
Unitech Inc.	...Respondent
Commissioner	WITH CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2024 Of Customs Nhava Sheva-III ...Appellant
Versus
Unitech Inc.	...Respondent
	WITH CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2025
Commissioner Versus	Of Custom NS III ...Appellant
Goyal Trading	...Respondent WITH CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2025
Commissioner Versus	Of Custom NH III ...Appellant
Gulab Fibres	...Respondent

¶5

Page 1 of 4

¶6

33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC

¶7

Mr. Karan Adik a/w, Ms Niyati Mankad (VC) and Ms. Priyanka Wagh, for the Appellant. Mr Anil Balani (VC) , for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 30 JULY 2025

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Adik, learned counsel for the Appellants in all these appeals and Mr. Balani, learned counsel for the Respondents.

¶11

2. Custom Appeal No.50 of 2024 is not on board, but the same is taken on board with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

3. The monetary amount involved in all these appeals is collectively not more than Rs. 7.5 Lakhs. Accordingly, Mr. Balani placed reliance on Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs instructions dated 2 November 2023, which provide that the Revenue shall not file or pursue appeals where the monetary limit, insofar as the High Courts are concerned, is less than Rs. 1 Crore. In each of these appeals, admittedly, the monetary limits involved are less than or around Rs. 1 lakh or, in any event, the total monetary amounts in all these appeals, collectively, do not exceed Rs. 7.5 Lakhs.

¶13

4. Mr. Adik, however, refers to clause 2 of these instructions, in which it is stated that adverse judgments relating to classification and refund issues which are of a legal and/or recurring nature would not be covered by the aforesaid instructions.

¶14

Page 2 of 4

¶15

33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC

¶16

5. However, in all these appeals, the challenge is to the Tribunal’s orders quashing the penalties imposed on the Respondent-assessee. There is no formal direction for refund of the penalty amounts that might have been paid by the Respondent-assessees, though this would be the logical consequence in the absence of any provision to the contrary. These are not the refund issues referred to in the CBIC instructions.

¶17

6. Clause 2 of the instructions dated 2 November 2023 states that adverse judgments related to amounts, aside from classification and refund issues, which are of a legal and/or recurring nature, should be challenged. However, in the current appeals, there are no refund issues as contemplated under the instructions dated 2 November 2023. The instructions refer to typical refund issues or those arising from the resolution of classification issues in any assessment. Such issues could have broad implications, far beyond the individual assessee’s case. But the instruction would not include cases or situations where the penalty imposed on an individual assessee is quashed, with or without specific directions for refunding the quashed penalty amount.

¶18

7. Therefore, these appeals are impacted by instructions dated 2 November 2023 and will have to be disposed of on the grounds of the monetary benefits coupled with a policy of the appellants not to pursue such appeals.

¶19

8. However, the questions of law raised in these appeals are expressly left open. Disposal of these appeals on grounds of monetary limits may not be construed as our approval or, for that

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC

¶22

matter, disapproval of the view taken by the Tribunal in these matters.

¶23

9. Mr. Adik, in fact requested us to refer to the decision of the CESTAT in Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs¹ and the larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hemant Bhai R. Patel vs. Commissioner of Customs² in which he claimed a view contrary to that in the impugned orders was taken.

¶24

10. Since we are expressly keeping the question of law open, we do not think that there will be any prejudice to the Revenue if they wish to agitate the issue now raised in these appeals in matters where the monetary limit exceeds that which is prescribed in the CBIC instructions. However, considering the monetary limits and the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs instructions dated 2 November 2023, we dispose of these appeals by leaving the questions of law open. These appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶25

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶26

(M.S. Sonak, J)

¶27

1 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 587

¶28

2 . 2003 (153) ELT 226

¶29

Page 4 of 4

Commissioner of Customs Nh III v. Unitech Inc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs Nh III v. Unitech Inc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Hikal Limited vs Union of India

Hameeda Mohsen Abdulla Jasim Alhakam vs Union of India

Shyam Purshotam Awasthi vs Asst Commissioner of Income Tax 17(1) Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs Nh III vs Gulab Fibres

Commissioner of Customs Ns III vs Goyal Trading

Commissioner of Customs Nh III vs Unitech Inc.