Case Details: Vishal Video and Appliances Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs ACC (Import)- (2025) 27 Centax 207 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathiba M. Singh & Dharmesh Sharma, JJ.
- S/Shri Yogendra Aldak, Agrim Arora, Ms Purvi Sinha & Rishav Kumar, Advs., for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel a/w. Ms Suhani Mathur, Shivang Chawla, Ritwik Saha, Umang Misra, Advs., Aditya Singla, SSC & Rajeev Ranjan, DC (Legal) ACC Import, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The assessee, an importer of mobile phones, was granted a refund of excess Countervailing Duty (CVD) pursuant to a ruling by the Delhi High Court. The Revenue Department filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court of India, challenging the refund order. During the pendency of the SLP, the Revenue issued protective Show Cause Notices (SCNs) under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to safeguard the limitation period, with adjudication deferred in accordance with Section 28(9A). Subsequently, the Supreme Court of India reversed the Delhi High Court’s order, thereby triggering the six-month statutory limitation period for adjudication. The assessee contended that the adjudication order was time-barred under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, as it was passed beyond the prescribed period. Conversely, the Revenue argued that statutory extensions, arising from the Supreme Court of India’s suo moto orders in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (2020 Relaxation Act), were applicable, thereby rendering the adjudication valid. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) upheld the Revenue’s contention, leading the assessee to challenge the ruling before the Delhi High Court.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that the limitation period for adjudicating the SCNs should be computed from the date on which the Supreme Court of India decided the SLP, rather than from the date of receipt of the certified copy. The Court acknowledged that CESTAT’s interpretation required further judicial scrutiny, particularly concerning the applicability of Section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act and the legal effect of the Supreme Court of India’s suo moto orders extending limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Recognizing the complexity of the legal issues involved, the Delhi High Court stayed the CESTAT ruling and restrained the Revenue from undertaking any coercive action against the assessee until the final adjudication of the matter. The case was listed for further hearing, with additional directions to be issued in due course.
List of Cases Reviewed
Vishal Video & Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 27 Centax 206 (Tri. – Del.) — Stayed [Paras 2, 12, 13, 15, 16]
List of Cases Cited
- ITC Limited v. Commissioner — 2019 (368) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) — Referred [Paras 10, 12, 15]
- Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (335) E.L.T. 446 (Del.) — Referred [Para 8]
- SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2015 (318) E.L.T. 607 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 5]
- Vishal Video & Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (341) E.L.T. 39 (Del.) — Referred [Paras 8, 9]
- Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016 (340) E.L.T. 88 (Del.) — Referred [Para 8]
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
- C.B.E. & C. Circular No. 37/2001-Cus., dated 18-6-2001 [Para 4]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 [Para 5]
- Notification No. 12/2012-C.E., dated 17-3-2012 [Paras 4, 5]
