Case Details: National Fregrance vs. Union of India (2026) 38 Centax 70 (Del.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Prathibha M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
- S/Shri Rahul Raheja, Rohit Raheja & Gaurav Prakash, Advs., for the Petitioner.
- Shri Sai Manik Sud, SPC, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners, registered exporters of pan masala/mouth fresheners containing tobacco, filed shipping bills in Oct 2024. The goods were provisionally released against bank guarantees and samples were tested by CRCL. The first CRCL reports (Dec 2024) confirmed tobacco content and raised no adverse classification. Based on this, petitioners sought finalisation and refund. Subsequently, without fresh sampling, CRCL issued a “clarification” report (Nov 2025) classifying the goods as Gutka. Relying on this, Customs wrote to GST authorities to withhold IGST refunds, leading to the writ petitions.
High Court Held
The Delhi High Court held that the second CRCL report was invalid as it was issued without fresh samples or justification and could not override the original test reports, which remained binding. Customs was directed to decide the petitioners’ representations for release of bank guarantees by 28 Feb 2026 and to issue any SCN expeditiously if proposed. Matter remanded in favour of petitioners without adjudicating merits.
