Dismissed¶24

Southern General Agencies v. The Commissioner of Customs

Madras HC19 Feb 2026CMA/85/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Southern General Agencies v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Preventive Commissionerate; CMA No. 85 of 2026 and CMP No. 957 of 2026, Madras High Court, decided 19-02-2026; appeal under Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 against CESTAT Miscellaneous Order No.40001/2025 rejecting delay condonation application C/COD/40651/2024; dismissed as withdrawn on non-pressing endorsement; adjudication order passed pending appeal rendered appeal infructuous; no costs; appellant counsel Hari Radhakrishnan, respondent counsel B. Sivaraman (Junior Standing Counsel); no precedent discussed, no quantum.

What did the court decide?

None; appeal and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed as withdrawn, with no costs ordered. ¶24

Southern General Agencies Vs The Commissioner of Customs — Customs and Excise | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMA No. 85 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶8

CMA No. 85 of 2026 AND

¶9

CMP NO. 957 OF 2026

¶10

M/s.Southern General Agencies,

¶11

D7, Shanti Apartments, 21, TTK, 1st Cross Street, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018.

¶12

..Appellant(s)

¶13

¶14

The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Preventive Commissionerate, 60, Rajaji Salai, Customs House, Chennai - 600 001.

¶15

..Respondent(s)

¶16

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 130 of Customs Act, 1962 to set aside the impugned Miscellaneous Order No.40001/2025 dated 02.01.2025 in Application No.C/COD/40651/2024 in Appeal Diary No.41423/2024, passed by the Honble Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and to allow this appeal.

¶17

For Appellant(s): Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Sivaraman Junior Standing Counsel

¶18

__________ Page1 of 4

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

CMA No. 85 of 2026

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth J.)

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant makes an endorsement not pressing the

¶24

appeal, recording which this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the connected Miscellaneous Petition are dismissed as withdrawn.

¶25

The withdrawal is on account of the fact that the present appeal challenges order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) dismissing the delay condonation petition. The appeal before

¶26

the Tribunal had challenged the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), that had remanded the matter for fresh consideration before the Adjudicating Authority.

¶27