Remanded

Sanjay Kulthia v. Mumbai-Prev

CESTAT24 Mar 2026C/87400/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed appeals filed by two individuals against the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by setting aside an order that rejected them without addressing merits. The Court held that since pre-deposit requirements under Section 129E were eventually met before the Tribunal, the matter must be remanded for a fresh hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; appeals allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for decision on merits.

Sanjay Kulthia vs Mumbai-Prev — Customs and Excise | CESTAT (2026)

¶1

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI

¶2

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I

¶3

Customs Appeal No. 87400 of 2025

¶4

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PAX-APP-847 to 849/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III]

¶5

Sanjay Kulthia .… Appellant M/s. BSK Jewellers, 18, Hasanpukur, First Lane, Kolkata 700 007.

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commissioner of Customs, Preventive, Mumbai …. Respondent New Custom House, Mumbai 400 001.

¶8

WITH

¶9

Customs Appeal No. 87401 of 2025

¶10

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTM-PAX-APP-847 to 849/2023-24 dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III]

¶11

Lalit Kulthia .… Appellant M/s. BSK Jewellers, 18, Hasanpukur, First Lane, Kolkata 700 007.

¶12

Versus

¶13

Commissioner of Customs, Preventive, Mumbai …. Respondent New Custom House, Mumbai 400 001.

¶14

APPEARANCE:

¶15

Shri Vineet Kumar Singh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri S.K. Mathur, Special Counsel for the Respondent

¶16

CORAM:

¶17

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

¶18

FINAL ORDER NO. 85751-85752/2026

¶19

Date of Hearing: 24.03.2026 Date of Decision: 24.03.2026

¶20

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

¶21

Heard both sides and perused the case records.

¶22

¶23

C/87400, 87401/2025

¶24

These appeals are directed against the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-III. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeals filed by the appellants on the ground that the requirement of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 has not been complied with by the appellants.

¶25

On reading of the case records, we find that though the appellants did not comply with the requirement of making pre-deposit at the time of filing of appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), but such requirement was duly complied with at the time of filing appeals before the Tribunal, which will be evident from the fact that upon compliance of pre-deposit, Registry has assigned number to the appeals and registered the same for hearing before the Tribunal. Since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not discussed the merits of the case and has simply rejected the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of the requirement of Section 129E ibid , we are of the view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merits.

¶26

Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner (Appeals), for deciding the appeals based on the available records and those to be submitted by the appellants at the time of hearing of the appeals before him. Needless to say that a reasonable opportunity of hearing should be granted to the appellants before deciding the appeals afresh.

¶27

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

¶28

(S.K. MOHANTY) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

¶29

(M.M. PARTHIBAN) MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶30

tvu

Sanjay Kulthia v. Mumbai-Prev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kulthia v. Mumbai-Prev

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

-Commissioner of Customs-Air Special Cargo vs Khushi Diamonds

Anjum International vs -Kolkata(Port)

Commissioner Of Customs Airport & Acc, Bangalore vs Creative Peripherals And Distribution Limited

Rajesh Shetty Cfo vs Principal Commissioner of Customs-New Delhi Acc Import

Hcl Infosystems Limited vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (Acc Import)-New Delhi

M/S. Sadani Brothers vs Kolkata-Port

Kai International Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhubaneshwar Customs (Prev)

Kai International Pvt. Ltd. vs Bhubaneshwar Customs (Prev)