Delhi High Court
M/S Gourishankar Polymer Industries vs Commissioner Of Customs on 20 March, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 20th March, 2025
+ CUSAA 48/2025 & CM APPL. 11174/2025
M/S GOURISHANKAR POLYMER INDUSTRIES .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Prashant Srivastava, Advocate.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, Standing
Counsel.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
PrathibaM. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 130
of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking to set aside the order dated 8th November
2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(hereinafter, 'CESTAT'), Principal Bench at New Delhi.
3. It is submitted by Mr. Aakarsh Srivastava, ld. Standing Counsel for
the Respondent that though the monetary limit is below Rs.50,00,000/-, the
classification of the product would be a recurring and a legal issue and
hencein terms of exception in Clause 2(c) of the'Instruction' dated 2nd
November 2011, the issue deserves to be considered. The said clause in the
Instruction reads as under :
"2. Adverse judgments relating to the following
should be contested irrespective of the amount
involved:
a) Where the constitutional validity of the
provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge;
b) Where Notification/ Instruction/ Order or
Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires;
c) Classification and refund issues which are of
legal and/ or recurring nature."
4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the order dated 14th
November 2024 in Customs Appeal No. 41243/ 2015 passed by CESTAT,
Chennai wherein the same product was involved i.e., PVC Resin Grade SP
660 (Suspension Grade) and the CESTAT, Chennai had refused to entertain
the matter and had disposed it on the ground of monetary value. The
relevant portion of the said order reads as under:
"Order dictated in court. Revenue appeals are
dismissed on the ground of monetary limits as per
Litigation Policy."
5. Considering the fact that the same product is involved even in the
order passed by CESTAT, Chennai and the classification of this product for
the period prior to 2017 has not been settled, this Court deems it appropriate
to remand the matter to CESTAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi for a fresh
adjudication on the classification issue itself and not to dispose of the matter
on merely the monetary limit.
6. Considering that this is an old matter, CESTAT, Principal Bench,
New Delhi shall dispose the said matter within three months.
7. Petition is disposed of. All the pending applications, if any, are also
disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2025/da/ck
