Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 12th September 2025
M/S IG PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advs.
Through: Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham Kumar, Advs. for Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC.
Dr. B. Ramaswamy, Adv. for CGSC.
JUDGMENT
21 WITH + W.P.(C) 11752/2023 M/S AUTOMOTIVE TYRE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION versus SSC. Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Mishra and Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya & Ms. Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI. 22 WITH + W.P.(C) 11753/2023 M/S NOCIL LIMITED versus SSC. Kumar Mishra and Mr. Chandan 23 WITH + W.P.(C) 11754/2023 M/S OWENS-COMING (INDIA)
PRIVATE LIMITED versus SSC. 24 WITH + W.P.(C) 11763/2023 M/S JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED versus SSC. 25 WITH + W.P.(C) 11765/2023 M/S FORUM OF ACRYLIC FIBRE MANUFACTURES versus SSC. 26 WITH + W.P.(C) 11766/2023 M/S ASSOCIATION OF CHLOROMETHANES MANUFACTURERS versus SSC. 27 WITH + W.P.(C) 11771/2023 M/S DEEPAK PHENOLICS LIMITED versus Through: Mr. Vinay Yadav SPC MS Kamna Behrani, Mr. Ansh Kalra, Mr. Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. (M:
9109698880) Mr. Dipak Raj and Mr. Subham SSC. 28 WITH + W.P.(C) 11773/2023 M/S APCOTEX INDUSTRIES LIMITED versus Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. SSC. 29 WITH + W.P.(C) 11776/2023 M/S THIRUMALAI CHEMICALS LIMITED versus Divyanshu Sinha, Advs. SSC. 30 WITH + W.P.(C) 11777/2023 M/S BAJAJ HEALTHCARE LIMITED SSC. Kumar Mishra Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Ms. Kanchan Shakya & Ms. Priyam Sharma, Advs. for UOI. 31 WITH + W.P.(C) 11805/2023 M/S UI VR PVT. LTD.
VERSUS
VERSUS
SSC. 33 WITH + W.P.(C) 11973/2023 M/S ALKALI MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA versus SSC. 34 AND + W.P.(C) 11981/2023 M/S AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED versus SSC. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. These petitions challenge the amendments brought about in the Customs Tariff Provisions i.e., Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 vide Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023, as being ultra vires.
3. Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 reads as under:
4. A comparative chart of the provisions which were amended in contrast with the unamended provisions is set out below:
5. The Petitioners were aggrieved by this amendment as according to them, the substantive rights of the Petitioners to challenge the notifications were being taken away.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that recently, the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’) in its order dated 26th August, 2025, in Anti Dumping Appeal No. 53193/2023 titled ‘Essilorluxottica Asia Pacific Pte Ltd. (Formerly known as Essilor Amera Pte Ltd.) v. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Trade Remedies and Ors.’, has held as under:
counsel for the appellant that even if a notification as contemplated under section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 is now issued to bring section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 into force, the Tribunal would still continue to have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the notification issued by the Central Government imposing anti-dumping duty, as it had before, to hear appeals under section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act cannot be accepted.
81. As noticed above, the Central Government has not issued any notification contemplated under section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 and, therefore, section 134 of the Finance Act has not come into force. This appeal is, therefore, maintainable before the Tribunal.”
7. In effect, the finding of CESTAT is that Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not been notified under Section 1(2)(b) of the Finance Act, 2023 to bring into force the said Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023. In view thereof, the CESTAT has held the said appeal to be maintainable before CESTAT. The finding being that Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023 has not been notified, the amended Sections 9, 9A and 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 have therefore not come into effect.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of this order dated 26th August, 2025 of CESTAT, the Petitioners do not wish to press the present petitions. However, if the position changes, they may be given liberty to revive the present petition.
9. The above mentioned position as to the notification, is not contested by ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
10. In view of the above, the present petitions are disposed of as infructuous.
11. The Court has not examined the merits of the challenge in these writ petitions. The same would be examined in an appropriate case if the need arises.
12. Liberty is granted to revive the present petitions if the position as set out above in respect of the notification of Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2023, changes.
13. All petitions are disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE SEPTEMBER 12, 2025 Rahul/ck