M/S TECMAX ELECTRONICS vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE)

Judgment text excerpt

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:21st February, 2025 + CUSAA 47/2025 & CM APPL. 10721/2025 M/S TECMAX ELECTRONICS .....Appellant Through: Mr. Mayank Sharma & Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advs. (M:9718900060) versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE).....Respondent Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Suhani Mathur & Mr. Jai Ahuja, Advs. (M: 9811253531) CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL.10721/2025 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CUSAA 47/2025 3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant - M/s Techmax Electronics challenging the impugned order dated 18th November, 2024 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘CESTAT’), by which the delay in filing the second appeal has not been condoned by CESTAT. 4. The brief background is that the Appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for import of certain Brass Ceramic Cartridges from China by Bill of Entry No. 2995695 dated 28th August, 2017. There was an allegation of misdeclaration, Signature Not Verified CUSAA 47/2025 Page 1 of 6 Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:24.02.2025 17:31 which was made and the value of the goods was alleged to be under-valued. A differential duty of Rs.2,71,201/- was assessed by the Department and confirmed vide the Order-in-Original dated 12th September, 2017 (hereinafter ‘OIO’). The OIO also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,71,201/-. In order to avoid the demurrage and detention charges, the Appellant cleared the goods by paying the differential duty and penalty as imposed by said OIO. 5. This order was then challenged by the