Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 25th August, 2025
52546/2025 M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA (P) LIMITED .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Mr. Yatharth Tripathi, Advs. (M:8010333998)
Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC.
JUDGMENT
59 AND + CUSAA 118/2025, CM APPL. 52547/2025 & CM APPL. 52548/2025 M/S PCS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED.....Appellant Through: Mr. Yogendra Aldak, Mr. Kunal Kapoor and Mr. Yatharth Tripathi, Advs.
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT).....Respondent Through: Ms. Anushree Narain, SSC. CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.52545/2025 (for condonation of delay) in CUSAA 117/2025 CM APPL. 52547/2025 (for condonation of delay) in CUSAA 118/2025
2. These are applications for condonation of delay in filing the Customs Appeals before this Court. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay is condoned. The applications are disposed of. CM APPL.52546/2025 (for exemption) in CUSAA 117/2025 CM APPL.52548/2025 (for exemption) in CUSAA 118/2025
3. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.
CUSAA 117/2025 CUSAA 118/2025
4. These appeals challenge the impugned orders passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter “CESTAT”) dated 3rd July, 2017 and 30th June, 2017 by which the CESTAT had remanded the matters to the Adjudicating Authority to await the decision in Union of India & Ors. vs. Mangali Impex Limited, Special Leave Petition (C) No. 2045[3] of
2016.
5. 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 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.”
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The respective appeals before the CESTAT being C/53147/2015-CUS and C/53181/2015-CUS are restored to their original positions before the CESTAT. The CESTAT shall decide the respective appeals as listed earlier on merits.
9. The present appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
10. List before the CESTAT on 15th September, 2025.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE SHAIL JAIN JUDGE AUGUST 25, 2025/dk/sh/ck