Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th September 2025
M/S SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Adv. (M:8010333998)
Through: Mr Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing
Counsel. (M: 9871094948)
JUDGMENT
41 AND + CUSAA 146/2025, CM APPL.57930/2025 & CM APPL.57931/2025 M/S SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED.....Appellant Through: Mr. Kunal Kapoor, Adv.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)
NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEAR IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI.....Respondent Through: Mr Aakarsh Srivastava, Senior Standing Counsel. (M: 9871094948) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.57919/2025 in CUSAA 145/2025 CM APPL.57931/2025 in CUSAA 146/2025
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. CM APPL.57918/2025 in CUSAA 145/2025 CM APPL.57930/2025 in CUSAA 146/2025
3. These are applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals challenging the impugned order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘CESTAT’).
4. The reasons given in the applications have been perused by the Court. Similar cases have already been considered, and delay has been condoned.
5. The applications are disposed of.
CUSAA 145/2025 CUSAA 146/2025
6. These appeals have been filed by the Appellants under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the impugned orders passed by CESTAT dated 13th July 2017 by which the CESTAT had remanded the matters to the Adjudicating Authority to await the decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mangli Impex Limited, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2045[3] of 2016.
7. Similar appeals have already been considered by this Court in a number of matters. The decision on ‘proper officer’ has now been rendered by the Supreme Court in Canon India (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, (2021) 18 SCC 563, (hereinafter “Canon-I”) wherein it was held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DRI’) officials are not ‘proper officers’ under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Thereafter, a review against Canon-I was considered by the Supreme Court and the decision was passed in Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 titled Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter “Canon-II”). In Canon-II, it has been categorically held that the DRI officials would be ‘proper officers’ for purposes of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The relevant portion of the judgment in Canon-II reads as under:
maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeals have been preferred against them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT. e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the respective High Court on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, this Court or the respective High Court shall dispose of such appeals or writ petitions in accordance with the ruling in this judgment and restore such notices to the CESTAT for hearing the matter on merits. f. Where appeals against the orders-in-original involving issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices under Section 28 are pending before the CESTAT, they shall now be decided in accordance with the observations made in this decision.”
8. In view thereof, the question of proper officer no longer remains to be adjudicated. Accordingly, the appeals would have to be heard by the CESTAT on merits.
9. Such a course of action has been adopted by this Court in several other appeals, including in Commissioner of Customs vs. Sanjay Sachdeva (CUSAA 173/2022), Commissioner of Customs vs. Rohit Kumar Chartered Engineer, (CUSAA 175/2022), Commissioner of Customs vs. Do Throng Hieu and Other, (CUSAA 176/2022) and various other appeals.
10. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respective appeals listed below are restored to their original positions before CESTAT.
11. The details of the said appeals are as under: CUSAA No Impugned Order Date CESTAT Appeal NO. 145/2025 13th July, 2017 C/55648/2014 146/2025 13th July, 2017 C/56079/2014
12. The above appeals as listed before CESTAT shall now be decided on merits.
13. List before CESTAT on 8th October 2025.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/dk/sm