Bombay High Court
Commissioner Of Customs Ns Iii vs Goyal Trading on 30 July, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC
2025:BHC-OS:12300
Digitally signed
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2025.07.31
Pallavi
18:26:52
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2024
Commissioner Of Customs Nhava Sheva-III ...Appellant
Versus
Goyal Trading ...Respondent
WITH
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 58 OF 2024
Commissioner Of Customs Nhava Sheva-III ...Appellant
Versus
Unitech Inc. ...Respondent
WITH
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2024
Commissioner Of Customs Nhava Sheva-III ...Appellant
Versus
Unitech Inc. ...Respondent
WITH
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2025
Commissioner Of Custom NS III ...Appellant
Versus
Goyal Trading ...Respondent
WITH
CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 14 OF 2025
Commissioner Of Custom NH III ...Appellant
Versus
Gulab Fibres ...Respondent
Page 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 22:03:15 :::
33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC
Mr. Karan Adik a/w, Ms Niyati Mankad (VC) and Ms. Priyanka
Wagh, for the Appellant.
Mr Anil Balani (VC), for the Respondent.
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 30 JULY 2025
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Adik, learned counsel for the Appellants in all these
appeals and Mr. Balani, learned counsel for the Respondents.
2. Custom Appeal No.50 of 2024 is not on board, but the same is
taken on board with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The monetary amount involved in all these appeals is
collectively not more than Rs. 7.5 Lakhs. Accordingly, Mr. Balani
placed reliance on Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs
instructions dated 2 November 2023, which provide that the
Revenue shall not file or pursue appeals where the monetary limit,
insofar as the High Courts are concerned, is less than Rs. 1 Crore. In
each of these appeals, admittedly, the monetary limits involved are
less than or around Rs. 1 lakh or, in any event, the total monetary
amounts in all these appeals, collectively, do not exceed Rs. 7.5
Lakhs.
4. Mr. Adik, however, refers to clause 2 of these instructions, in
which it is stated that adverse judgments relating to classification
and refund issues which are of a legal and/or recurring nature
would not be covered by the aforesaid instructions.
33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC
5. However, in all these appeals, the challenge is to the Tribunal's
orders quashing the penalties imposed on the Respondent-assessee.
There is no formal direction for refund of the penalty amounts that
might have been paid by the Respondent-assessees, though this
would be the logical consequence in the absence of any provision to
the contrary. These are not the refund issues referred to in the CBIC
instructions.
6. Clause 2 of the instructions dated 2 November 2023 states
that adverse judgments related to amounts, aside from classification
and refund issues, which are of a legal and/or recurring nature,
should be challenged. However, in the current appeals, there are no
refund issues as contemplated under the instructions dated 2
November 2023. The instructions refer to typical refund issues or
those arising from the resolution of classification issues in any
assessment. Such issues could have broad implications, far beyond
the individual assessee's case. But the instruction would not include
cases or situations where the penalty imposed on an individual
assessee is quashed, with or without specific directions for refunding
the quashed penalty amount.
7. Therefore, these appeals are impacted by instructions dated 2
November 2023 and will have to be disposed of on the grounds of
the monetary benefits coupled with a policy of the appellants not to
pursue such appeals.
8. However, the questions of law raised in these appeals are
expressly left open. Disposal of these appeals on grounds of
monetary limits may not be construed as our approval or, for that
33-34-35-48-49- CUAPP-56-2024F.DOC
matter, disapproval of the view taken by the Tribunal in these
matters.
9. Mr. Adik, in fact requested us to refer to the decision of the
CESTAT in Scania Commercial Vehicles India Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Commissioner of Customs1 and the larger Bench of the Tribunal in
the case of Hemant Bhai R. Patel vs. Commissioner of Customs 2 in
which he claimed a view contrary to that in the impugned orders
was taken.
10. Since we are expressly keeping the question of law open, we
do not think that there will be any prejudice to the Revenue if they
wish to agitate the issue now raised in these appeals in matters
where the monetary limit exceeds that which is prescribed in the
CBIC instructions. However, considering the monetary limits and
the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs instructions dated 2
November 2023, we dispose of these appeals by leaving the
questions of law open. These appeals are disposed of in the above
terms. No costs.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
1 2024 SCC OnLine CESTAT 587
2. 2003 (153) ELT 226
