Principal Commissioner Of Customs Acc Import New Delhi vs Ms Micromax Informatics Limited

Court
Delhi High Court

$~6 to 10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of decision: 27.10.2026
6
# CNR No. DLHC010208572024
+ CUSAA 34/2024
7
# CNR No. DLHC010213652024
+ CUSAA 36/2024
8
# CNR No. DLHC010221782024
+ CUSAA 38/2024
9
# CNR No. DLHC010246872024
+ CUSAA 41/2024
10
# CNR No. DLHC010246882024
+ CUSAA 42/2024

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ACC
IMPORT NEW DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC

versus

MS MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Mr. Ayush
Raj, Ms. Disha, Mr. Vedant
Kohli, Mr. Vinayak, Ms. Prachi
Dhingra, Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa &
Mr Udit Bajpai, Advs.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 1 of 7

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
1. The issues involved in all the appeals are similar. For the sake
of convenience, the period involved and the relevant dates are
tabulated below:
HC Appeal
Period Refund and Interest
amount
OIA dt.
09.03.2022
CESTAT Order dt.
(Against
Sanctioned
26.09.2023(Against
Sanctioned Refund)
Refund)
CUSAA No.
June 2014
to March
2015

Export
Commissio
nerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 28,48,22,600/- +
Interest Rs.
2,13,57,289/-
Sanctioned
refund
amounts to
be paid to
Micromax +
Interest for
delayed
payment of
refund to be
paid as per
law to
Micromax.
Upheld OIA dated
36/2024
09.03.2022
CUSAA No.
September
2014

Import
Commissio
nerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 22,48,35,292/- +
Interest Rs.
1,53,75,038/- +
Rejected Claim Rs.
14,08,263/-
Sanctioned
refund
amounts to
be paid to
Micromax +
Interest not
dealt with as
already
decided in
previous OIA
Upheld OIA dated
34/2024
09.03.2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 2 of 7

CUSAA No.
October
2014

Import
Commissio
nerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 33,91,47,955/- +
Interest Rs.
2,14,63,884/-
Sanctioned
refund
amounts to
be paid to
Micromax +
Interest not
dealt with as
already
decided in
previous OIA
Upheld OIA dated
41/2024
09.03.2022
CUSAA No.
November
2014 to
January
2015

Import
Commissio
nerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 68,11,45,947/- +
Interest Rs.
4,15,40,572/- +
Rejected Claim Rs.
25,46,390/-
Sanctioned
refund
amounts to
be paid to
Micromax +
Interest not
dealt with as
already
decided in
previous OIA
Upheld OIA dated
38/2024
09.03.2022
CUSAA No.
February
2015 and
March
2015

Import
Commissio
nerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 50,15,32,437/- +
Interest Rs.
2,95,14,840/- +
Rejected Claim Rs.
10,10,708/-
Sanctioned
refund
amounts to
be paid to
Micromax +
Interest not
dealt with as
already
decided in
previous OIA
Upheld OIA dated
42/2024
09.03.2022

2. The respondent imported Cellular Phones and mobile parts
during the relevant period. Self-assessed Bills of Entry for home
consumption were filed classifying the imported goods to be
chargeable @ 0% Basic Customs Duty and @ 6% Countervailing
Duty (for short ‘CVD’).
2.1 Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 was issued
granting exemption from excise duty. The notification was amended
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 3 of 7

by Notification No. 4/2014-CE dated 17.02.2014. By Notification No.
12/2015-CE dated 01.03.2015, the exemption granted was made
subject to fulfilment of Condition No. 16. The condition is reproduced
below:
“If no credit under rule 3 or rule 13 of the CENVAT
Credit Rules, 2004 has been taken in respect of the
inputs or capital goods used in the manufacture of
these goods.”

2.2 The issue as to whether CVD was leviable on the goods
imported by the respondent was decided by the Supreme Court in
SRF Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai , (2015) 14 SCC
596. It was held that CVD was not payable on the goods imported
during the period in issue.
2.3 The respondent on basis of the decision in SRF Ltd . (supra)
applied for a refund of the CVD. The application was ultimately
decided by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (hereinafter
‘AA’). It was ordered that the refund claimed by the respondent along
with interest be credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund (for brevity
‘CWF’) in terms of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short
‘the Act’).
2.4 Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original (for short O-I-O), the
respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals)/First Appellate Authority (for short ‘FAA’) and succeeded.
The FAA held that the adjudicating authority had ignored the
certificate issued by the independent chartered accountant (for short
‘CA’), the certification by the statutory auditor of the balance sheet for
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 4 of 7

the financial year 2014-15 and 2015-16 and erred in concluding that
the CVD paid was made part of the cost of the mobile phones thereby
implying that the burden was passed on to the buyers.
2.5 The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
‘tribunal’) on 26.09.2023. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the production
of the certificate issued by the CA in itself is not evidence that the
burden of CVD was not passed on to the consumer. It is submitted that
the respondent had not shown the amount of refund due as an amount
receivable in the balance sheets as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016,
fortifying the case of the department that the burden of CVD paid was
passed on. It is canvassed that uniformity in prices before and after the
change in the CVD payment scenario does not establish that the
burden was not passed on to the customers.
4. Learned senior counsel for the respondent submits that no
substantial question of law arises. It is contended that the factual
findings recorded by the FAA were upheld by the tribunal holding that
the case was not of unjust enrichment. It is submitted that the invoices
as directed by the department were produced to substantiate that there
was no change in prices during the relevant period and thereafter.
4.1 The submission is that the statutory audit reports, balance sheets
as on 31.03.2015 and 31.03.2016 and the notes appended thereto
established that the burden of CVD was not passed on and the amount
of CVD paid was recorded as an asset. The argument is that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 5 of 7

certificate issued by the CA supports the claim of the respondent for
refund. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Principal
Commissioner of Customs (ACC Imports) v. Nokia India Sales Pvt.
Ltd., 2025:DHC:5400-DB to buttress the submission that in similar
circumstances the certificate issued by an independent CA was held to
be a valid document for discharging the burden, to claim a refund
under Section 27(2) of the Act.
5. The undisputed facts are that no CVD was payable on the goods
imported by the respondent during the relevant period, consequently a
refund was due. The only issue was whether the burden of CVD paid
by the respondent was passed on or not. Another aspect was whether
the respondent had successfully rebutted the presumption under
Section 28D of the Act that the burden of duty was passed on to the
consumers.
6. The respondent before the AA produced invoices, a complete
set of balance sheets for the relevant financial years and a certificate
issued by the CA certifying that the burden of CVD paid was not
passed on to the customers. The tribunal considered the legal position
that the onus of rebutting the presumption under Section 28D of the
Act was on the respondent. The FAA concluded that the burden of
CVD was not passed on to the customers. A factual finding was
recorded that the invoices produced showed that CVD was neither
recovered from the buyers nor reflected in the invoices. The non-
claiming of expenditure vis-à-vis the CVD paid was held not to be
fatal to the claim of the respondent for refund of CVD paid, as it was
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 6 of 7

not proof of the burden having been passed on.
7. The rejection of the CA certificate by the AA was contrary to
Board Circular No. 18/2010 dated 07.08.2010. The reliance placed by
the FAA on the CA certificate stating that the incidence of CVD was
not passed on, was upheld by the tribunal being in consonance with
the circular.

8. The decision in Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon
by the respondent supports the contention that the certificate of the CA
cannot be ignored more so, when supported by other documents such
as the books of account. The conclusion of the tribunal upholding the
findings of fact recorded by the FAA suffers from no legal or factual
error much less perversity. There is no question of law involved much
less a substantial question of law.
9. The appeals are dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also
disposed of.


AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

SHAIL JAIN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
‘JK’
Reportable:- Yes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:05:26
CUSAA 34/2024 and connected Page 7 of 7