Dismissed

Commissioner of Customs-Import - Mumbai Import-I v. Shri Pradeep Chokhany

CESTAT6 May 2026C/86981/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Customs Appeals Tribunal dismissed Revenue appeals against orders dropping penalty proposals in show-cause notices. Since main importers were exonerated in related proceedings, the Tribunal held penalties on current respondents unsustainable, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed; impugned orders sustaining the dropping of penalty proposals are upheld.

Commissioner of Customs-Import - Mumbai Import-I vs Shri… — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. II

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 86981 of 2023

¶4

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 04/SJ(04)/PCC(Adjn.)/Mumbai/2023-24 dated 24.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai)

¶5

Commissioner of Customs, Import- Mumbai .… Appellant

¶6

New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Shri Pradeep Chokhany ….Respondent

¶9

Flat No.37, 4^th Floor, Vasundhara Residents’ Association, 17 Bhulabhai Desai Road, Mumbai- 400 026.

¶10

WITH

¶11

Customs Appeal No. 86982 of 2023

¶12

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 04/SJ(04)/PCC(Adjn.)/Mumbai/2023-24 dated 24.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai)

¶13

Commissioner of Customs, Import- Mumbai .… Appellant

¶14

New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

¶15

Versus

¶16

Tapas Bhattacharya ….Respondent

¶17

2102 Plant Godrej Tower 3, 30, KK Marg, Saat Rasta, Mumbai- 400 011.

¶18

AND

¶19

Customs Appeal No. 86990 of 2023

¶20

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 02/SJ(02)/PCC(Adjn.)/Mumbai/2023-24 dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai)

¶21

Commissioner of Customs, Import- Mumbai .… Appellant

¶22

New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

¶23

Versus

¶24

Shri Pradeep Chokhany ….Respondent

¶25

Flat No.37, 4^th Floor, Vasundhara Residents Association, 17, Bhulabhai Desai Raod, Mumbai- 400 026.

¶26

AND

¶27

Customs Appeal No. 86991 of 2023

¶28

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 02/SJ(02)/PCC(Adjn.)/Mumbai/2023-24 dated 18.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai)

¶29

¶30

C/86981, 86982,86990 & 86991/2023

¶31

Commissioner of Customs, Import- Mumbai New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

¶32

.… Appellant

¶33

Versus Shri Shyam Sunder Bagrodia, Executive Director ….Respondent Essar Projects (I) Ltd., Essar House, 11 K.K. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai- 400 034.

¶34

APPEARANCE:

¶35

Shri Jitesh Kumar Jain, Authorized Representative for the Revenue Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for the Respondents

¶36

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

¶37

FINAL ORDER NO. A/85842-85845/2026

¶38

Date of Hearing: 06.05.2026 Date of Decision: 06.05.2026

¶39

Per: S.K. MOHANTY

¶40

Heard both sides and perused the case records.

¶41

Imposition of penalty on alleged over-invoicing of imports, is the subject matter of present dispute. The show-cause notices dated 11.03.2015 and 31.08.2016 were adjudicated by the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs vide the impugned orders dated 18.05.2023 and 24.05.2023. Vide the said impugned orders, the learned adjudicating authority has dropped the proposals made in the show-cause notices. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned orders, Revenue has preferred these appeals before the Tribunal.

¶42

When the appeals were called out for hearing, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that the show-cause proceedings initiated against the main importers M/s Essar Power Gujarat Ltd., M/s Essar Power M.P. Ltd., M/s Essar Oil Ltd., and others were dropped by the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, and subsequently the said orders were upheld by the Tribunal. Thus, he submitted that since the present respondents were only imposed with a penalty and in view of the fact that the case of the main respondents have already been dropped by the learned Principal Commissioner of Customs, penalties imposed on the present respondents should not be sustained.

¶43

¶44

C/86981, 86982,86990 & 86991/2023

¶45

Learned AR appearing for the Revenue also fairly concedes that the case was dropped by the learned Principal Commissioner in the case of above mentioned companies and those were appealed by Revenue before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has dismissed the appeals filed by Revenue.

¶46

Since the main respondents were exonerated from any action pursuant to the show-cause notice dated 11.03.2015 and 31.08.2016, we are of the considered view that the imposition of penalties on the present respondents cannot also be sustained. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and accordingly, the impugned orders sustain and the appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed.

¶47

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶48

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶49

(M.M. PARTHIBAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶50

Sinha

Commissioner of Customs-Import - Mumbai Import-I v. Shri Pradeep Chokhany

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Customs-Import - Mumbai Import-I v. Shri Pradeep Chokhany

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

M/S United Futuristic Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs Mangalore-Cus

Prova Flavours India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangalore Customs

M/S Xiaomi Technology India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bangalore Customs

Bharat Electronics Limited vs The Principal Commissioner of Customs - Airport And Air Cargo Complex - Bengaluru

Hindustan Copper Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs(Import)- Mumbai Import-I

Mithila Drugs Pvt. Ltd. vs Nhava Sheva - IV

Kmk Trading Company vs Cochin-cus

Maj Shipping Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs Airport & General-New Delhi