M/S SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 57429/2025 in CUSAA 133/2025 CM APPL. 57432/2025 in CUSAA 134/2025 CM APPL. 57436/2025 in CUSAA 135/2025 CM APPL. 57448/2025 in CUSAA 136/2025 CM APPL. 57517/2025 in CUSAA 137/2025 CM APPL. 57522/2025 in CUSAA 138/2025 CM APPL. 57524/2025 in CUSAA 139/2025 CM APPL. 57634/2025 in CUSAA 140/2025 CM APPL. 57636/2025 in CUSAA 141/2025 CM APPL. 57638/2025 in CUSAA 142/2025

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. CM APPL. 57428/2025 in CUSAA 133/2025 CM APPL. 57431/2025 in CUSAA 134/2025 CM APPL. 57435/2025 in CUSAA 135/2025 CM APPL. 57447/2025 in CUSAA 136/2025 CM APPL. 57516/2025 in CUSAA 137/2025 CM APPL. 57521/2025 in CUSAA 138/2025 CM APPL. 57523/2025 in CUSAA 139/2025 CM APPL. 57633/2025 in CUSAA 140/2025 CM APPL. 57635/2025 in CUSAA 141/2025 CM APPL. 57637/2025 in CUSAA 142/2025

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. Accordingly, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- being deposited in each of the matters with Delhi High Court Bar Association Natural Calamities Relief Fund, in lieu of the Punjab Floods, within two weeks, delay in filing the appeals is condoned. The details of the said fund is as under: ● Account Name: DHCBA Natural Calamities Relief Fund. ● UCO Bank Account No.: 15530110174395 ● IFSC Code: UCBA0001553 ● Branch Address: Delhi High Court

6. The applications are disposed of.

CUSAA 133/2025, CUSAA 134/2025, CUSAA 135/2025, CUSAA 136/2025, CUSAA 137/2025, CUSAA 138/2025, CUSAA 139/2025, CUSAA 140/2025, CUSAA 141/2025 & CUSAA 142/2025

7. These appeals have been filed by the Appellants under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the impugned orders passed by Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘CESTAT’) dated 12th July 2017, 13th July 2017 and 17th 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.

8. 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:

accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court and appeals have been preferred against such orders which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28. c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of 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.”