Section 128. Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)

Judgments on Section 128

• Maruti Fabric Impex vs Ce & Cgst Noida — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. A written acceptance of value enhancement waives only the limited procedural right to a speaking order under Section 17(5) and, there being no estoppel against a statute, cannot foreclose the importer's statutory right…
• Jaina Marketing And Associates vs Union Of India And Ors — Delhi High Court, 30 Mar 2026. Where duty that was never payable is refunded after prolonged departmental delay in re-assessment and refund, interest at the statutory rate is payable from the date of the importer's first re-assessment application to…
• Noble Resources And Trading India… vs Union Of India — Supreme Court of India, 14 May 2025. A departmental circular cannot enlarge the exclusionary clause of a statutory exemption notification, and where an expression like 'agricultural product' is undefined, the common parlance and dictionary meaning apply,…
• Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. — Delhi High Court, 8 Apr 2025. Where Rule 16 of the Duty Drawback Rules prescribes no period of limitation, the general three-year limitation cannot be presumed to apply by default, especially where there are strong suspicions of fraudulent availment…
• Vicky Ramchand Asrani vs Mumbai-Air Port — CESTAT, 19 Dec 2024. Illicit import of gold must be deterred, but not by alienation of possession from its owner — where goods are merely restricted and not truly prohibited, absolute confiscation under section 125 fails and the owner is…
• M/S Global Technologies And Research vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs New… — Supreme Court of India, 15 Mar 2024. Where the Customs Act prescribes no limitation for the Committee of Commissioners to direct an appeal under Section 129A(2), its decision must still be taken within a reasonable time, and where earlier imports of…
• Yash Pakka Limited vs Lucknow Prev — CESTAT, 14 Feb 2024. Under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, a shipping bill may be amended or converted even after export if supported by documentary evidence in existence at the time of export, and a circular's self-imposed time limit…
• Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs — CESTAT, 24 Jan 2023. A self-assessment recorded in a bill of entry is itself an appealable order under Section 128, and no refund can be claimed or entertained under Section 27 until that self-assessment is modified in accordance with law,…
• M/S.N.C.Alexender vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 9 Jun 2022. Show cause notices and adjudication orders issued by DRI officers are valid because they are appointed as 'Officers of Customs' under Section 4 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 97 of the Finance Act, 2022…
• Itc Ltd vs Cce, Kolkata Iv — Supreme Court of India, 18 Sep 2019. A refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is first modified in accordance with law through appropriate proceedings, because refund…
• Tecno Doors Pvt Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 4 Apr 2018. Under the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, the freight cost includible in the assessable value of goods imported by air shall not…
• Forbo Sieglin G Movement Systems India vs Union Of India & Ors — Bombay High Court, 10 May 2013. Before rejecting the declared transaction value, the proper officer must under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 furnish in writing the grounds for doubting its truth or accuracy and give the importer a…
• M/S Kuku Overseas vs Commissioner Of Customs & Anr — Delhi High Court, 6 Oct 2026. Once a provisional assessment is finalised by an adjudication order, the importer must normally challenge it in appeal under Section 128, where arguments about delay can also be raised.
• M/S Sunrise Enterprises vs The Commissioner Of Customs… — Madras High Court, 25 Sep 2026. The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond 60 plus 30 days under Section 128(1). In exceptional cases, the High Court may use Article 226 to restore such an appeal for a decision on merits.
• M/S.Jai Jwala Enterprises, vs The Commissioner Of Customs,… — Madras High Court, 17 Sep 2026. The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot condone delay beyond the sixty plus thirty days in Section 128, but the High Court may, in exceptional facts, restore such an appeal under Article 226.
• Veeresh Prasad General Manager… vs Commissioner Of Customs - Chennai Ii… — CESTAT, 8 Sep 2026. Interest on a levy under the Customs Tariff Act (such as the IGST under Section 3) can be demanded only if the legislature has specifically provided for it, so the substituted Section 3(12) of the Customs Tariff Act,…
• Mohd Arif vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. Violation of natural justice is not an automatic exception to the rule of alternative remedy: where the adjudicating authority possesses jurisdiction and the complaint concerns only the manner of its exercise, the High…
• Irfan vs Commissioner Of Customs — Delhi High Court, 2 Sep 2026. A High Court will ordinarily decline to entertain a writ petition challenging a concluded Customs adjudication where the statutory appeal under Section 128 is available and has not been availed, and the petitioner…
• Mapaex Consumer Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India — Madhya Pradesh High Court, 18 Aug 2026. Where a fiscal statute provides a complete, self-contained hierarchy of statutory remedies, the High Court should not entertain an Article 226 writ petition that short-circuits the regular statutory appeal against a…
• Maa Kamakhya Traders vs The Union Of India — Patna High Court, 24 Jul 2026. Where a confiscation order has been passed under Section 124, the seizure merges with it and a party who ignored the show cause notice and hearing must pursue the equally efficacious statutory appeal under Section 128…

All 28 judgments