Dismissed

Cc (Nhava Sheva-v ), Mumbai v. Oriflame India P Ltd.

CESTAT16 Jun 2026C/86353/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by Revenue regarding redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act dismissed as the disputed amount of Rs.30 lakhs falls below the prescribed threshold limit for filing appeals before CESTAT under relevant litigation policy instructions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed under the Litigation Policy of the Government as the disputed amount is below the prescribed threshold limit.

Cc (Nhava Sheva-v ), Mumbai vs Oriflame India P Ltd. — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 86353 of 2017

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 82(Gr.II-A/F)/2017/(JNCH)-Appeal-II dated 16.02.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-II, Mumbai-II.)

¶5

Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-V), … Appellant Mumbai

¶6

Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai – 400 707.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Oriflame India Pvt. Ltd.

¶9

…. Respondent

¶10

Ground Floor, No.2030N, Second Floor & Space No. 402 & 403 on 4^th Floor of Corporate One CCG, New Delhi – 110 076.

¶11

APPEARANCE:

¶12

Ms. S. Varalakshmi, Authorized Representative for the Revenue None for the Respondent

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

HON’BLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. M.M. PARTHIBAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶15

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85782/2026

¶16

Date of Hearing : 16.06.2026 Date of Decision: 16.06.2026

¶17

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

¶18

Heard both sides and perused the case records.

¶19

Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Commissioner of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals)-II, Mumbai-II.), Revenue has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. The amount involved in the impugned proceedings is Rs.30,00,000/-.

¶20

Insofar as the monetary limit for filing of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal is concerned, by deriving the powers conferred in Section 131BA of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) has issued the instructions, from time to time, with the objective in reduction of the Government litigation in the area of Customs. In the latest

¶21

Customs Appeal No. 86353 of 2017

¶22

¶23

instruction issued by the CBIC from file F. No. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC dated 02.11.2023, the threshold monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakhs has been prescribed, below which the appeal shall not be filed before the CESTAT. Though at paragraph 2 in the said instructions dated 02.11.2023, there is specific mention of agitating the matter before the Appellate Forum, irrespective of the involvement of the amount on certain issues, but the issue categorized therein are not confirming to the present appeal filed by the Revenue inasmuch as the imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty under Section 112 (a) ibid , is the subject matter of present dispute and there is no involvement of any duty liability in the orders passed by the lower authorities. Hence, the appeal can be disposed of in terms of the litigation policy formulated by the Government.

¶24

Considering the disputed amount of refund of customs duty involved in the present appeal filed by Revenue, being only Rs.30,00,000/-, which is below the prescribed threshold limit as per the Instruction dated 02.11.2023, the appeal filed by Revenue in our considered view, is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed under the Litigation Policy of the Government.

¶25

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶26

(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial)

¶27

(M.M. Parthiban) Member (Technical)

¶28

Cc (Nhava Sheva-v ), Mumbai v. Oriflame India P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cc (Nhava Sheva-v ), Mumbai v. Oriflame India P Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vardhman Acrylics Limited vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)-Mumbai Import-I

T R Dinakaran vs Tuticorin

Anil Mathuradas Chopra vs Nhava Sheva

Kay Tee Lon Implex Pvt. Ltd. vs Nhava Sheva

Idris Ujjainwala vs Cc (Acc & Export) Mumbai

Seej India vs Cc (Acc & Export) Mumbai

-Commissioner of Customs-Air Special Cargo vs B v Chinai and Co. India Pvt. Ltd.

Commissioner of Customs-Nhava Sheva - v vs Krupachaton Manufacturing Co. P Ltd.