M/S Hindustan Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs

M/S HINDUSTAN GRANITES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT,1932 HAVING OFFICE AT: NO.5, LALBAGH-HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, OPP. 2^ND CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 027. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS PARTNER, MR. ANAND REDDY M.G. ALSO AT: R/O NO.217, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 011

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP HUILGOL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CUSTOMS DIVISION, BANGALORE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS DIVISION, 29/2, BASAVESHWARA BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 034.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), C.R. BUILDING, P.B.NO.5400, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:40513 WP No. 27592 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE HON'BLE CUSTOMS,

¶20

EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH, 1^ST FLOOR, WTC BUILDING, FKCCI COMPLEX, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY

¶21

ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THE W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.07.2025 BEARING FINAL ORDER NO.FO/C/A/20953/2025-CU(DB) PASSED BY THE R-3 - CESTAT IN CUSTOMS APPEAL NO.2386 OF 2012 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶29

"(i) Setting aside the impugned Order dated 03.07.2025 bearing Final Order No.FO/C/A/20953/2025CU[DB] passed by the 3^rd Respondent - Hon'ble CESTAT in Customs Appeal No. 2386 of 2012 (Annexure 'A');

¶30

(ii) Restoring the petitioner's appeal in Customs Appeal No.2386 of 2012 (Annexure F) on the file of the 3^rd Respondent - Hon'ble CESTAT with a direction to it to hear, consider and dispose off the said appeal afresh on merits and in accordance with law after properly examining the

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:40513 WP No. 27592 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

binding precedents submitted by the petitioner vide its compilations dated 23.02.2024 (Annexure G) and 29.01.2025 (Annexure K) and after granting an effective opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also permitting it to file such further submissions and documents as may be necessary; and

¶35

(iii) Pass such order or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interests of justice and equity."

¶36

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶37

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2011 passed by respondent No.2, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (CESTAT), which was numbered as Customs Appeal No.2386/2012. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that on 23.02.2024, the CESTAT heard both sides and reserved the matter for orders, subsequent to which, the petitioner filed the written submission along with case laws on * 23.02.2024 and 08.03.2024, despite which the CESTAT did not pass any orders.

¶38

* Inserted vide Chamber order dated: 03.11.2025 .

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40513 WP No. 27592 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

On 17.01.2025, appeal was reheard and reserved for

¶42

orders once again by the CESTAT on which date, the petitioner filed a synopsis of arguments in support of its case. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though subsequently petitioner filed detailed written submissions on 29.01.2025 and the compilation comprising of 19 judgments of various Courts including Apex Court in addition to the judgments already filed on 23.02.2024, the CESTAT has neither considered nor appreciated the subsequent written submissions and judgments filed on 29.01.2025 and has proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner, who is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶43

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶44

though the Registry has raised objections as regard maintainability of the present petition before this Court in the light of the Circular dated 16.07.2007 passed by this Court, since the impugned order is assailed on the limited ground of non-consideration of the written submissions and judgments filed by the petitioner on 29.01.2025 and violation of principles of natural justice, the said Circular will not come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and setting aside

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:40513 WP No. 27592 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the impugned order and remitting the matter back to CESTAT for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

¶49

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶50

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 29.01.2025, the petitioner filed detailed written submissions along with compilation of 19 case laws in terms of the liberty granted in favour of both sides by the CESTAT, when the matter was reserved on 17.01.2025. However, the said written submissions and case laws produced as Annexure – K to the writ petition dated 29.01.2025 have not been considered by the Tribunal as is clear from the impugned order, which neither refers to nor adverts to the said written submissions or case laws.

¶51

Under these peculiar / unique / special facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and in view of violation of principles of natural justice by the CESTAT in not considering the aforesaid written submissions and judgments, I deem it just and appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:40513 WP No. 27592 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Constitution of India and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the CESTAT for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. It is needless to state that the present order is passed in the peculiar / special / unique facts and circumstances obtaining in the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor carry any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever nor would it have any impact / bearing on any other case or on the Circular dated 16.07.2007 issued by this Court.

¶56

In the result, I pass the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶59

(ii) The impugned order dated 03.07.2025 passed

¶60

in * Customs Appeal .No.2386/2012 by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside.

¶61

(iii) Matter is remitted back to respondent No. *3 for reconsideration afresh bearing in mind the observations made in this order, which is however not be treated as a precedent nor carry any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.

¶62

* Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 03.11.2025

¶63

7 -

¶64

NC: 2025:KHC:40513 WP No. 27592 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

(iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of both parties to file additional pleadings, documents, judgments, etc., which shall be considered by respondent No. *3 while considering the

¶67

matter afresh, in accordance with law.

¶68

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶69

SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 71

¶70

Corrected vide Chamber Order dated: 03.11.2025.

M/S Hindustan Granites v. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hindustan Granites v. the Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Gurappa Doddamane Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Vasu Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Allied Carbides Private Limited, Vs the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

Sri B K Sanjay Krishnamurthy Vs the State of Karnataka by

Bangalore International Airport Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner / Assistant

Vision Manpower Private Limited Vs the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax