Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Micromax Informatics Limited

Court
Delhi High Court

$~2 to 5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 27.10.2026
(2)
# CNR No. DLHC010492332026
+ CUSAA 152/2026, CM APPL. 70891/2026, CM APPL.
70892/2026, CM APPL. 70893/2026 & CM APPL. 70894/2026
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC
with Mr. Nehaol Sri L.V.,
Advs.
versus
M/S 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.

(3)
# CNR No. DLHC010492342026
+ CUSAA 153/2026, CM APPL. 70895/2026, CM APPL.
70896/2026, CM APPL. 70897/2026 & CM APPL. 70898/2026
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC
with Mr. Nehaol Sri L.V.,
Advs.
versus
M/S MICROMAX INFORMATICS LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Mr. Ayush
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 1 of 7

Raj, Ms. Disha, Mr. Vedant
Kohli, Mr. Vinayak, Ms. Prachi
Dhingra, Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa &
Mr Udit Bajpai, Advs.
(4)
# CNR No. DLHC010492382026
+ CUSAA 154/2026, CM APPL. 70908/2026, CM APPL.
70909/2026, CM APPL. 70910/2026 & CM APPL. 70911/2026
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC
with Mr. Nehaol Sri L.V.,
Advs.
versus
M/S 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.
(5)
# CNR No. DLHC010493112026
+ CUSAA 155/2026, CM APPL. 71077/2026, CM APPL.
71078/2026, CM APPL. 71079/2026 & CM APPL. 71080/2026
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC
with Mr. Nehaol Sri L.V.,
Advs.
versus
M/S 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 2 of 7

Dhingra, Mr. Utkarsh Vatsa &
Mr Udit Bajpai, Advs.

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

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 70894/2026 In CUSAA 152/2026
CM APPL. 70898/2026 In CUSAA 153/2026
CM APPL. 70911/2026 In CUSAA 154/2026
CM APPL. 71080/2026 In CUSAA 155/2026
1. These applications are filed for condonation of delay of 75 days
in re-filing the appeals.
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the applications are allowed.
The delay in re-filing the appeals is condoned.
CM APPL. 70893/2026 In CUSAA 152/2026
CM APPL. 70897/2026 In CUSAA 153/2026
CM APPL. 70910/2026 In CUSAA 154/2026
CM APPL. 71079/2026 In CUSAA 155/2026
3. These applications are filed for condonation of delay of 81 days
in filing the appeals.
4. For the reasons mentioned therein, the applications are allowed.
The delay in filing the appeals is condoned.
CUSAA 152/2026, CM APPL. 70891/2026 & 70892/2026
CUSAA 153/2026, CM APPL. 70895/2026 & 70896/2026
CUSAA 154/2026, CM APPL. 70908/2026 & 70909/2026
CUSAA 155/2026, CM APPL. 71077/2026 & 71078/2026
5. The issues involved in all the appeals are similar. For the sake
of convenience, the period involved and the relevant dates are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 3 of 7

tabulated below:
HC Appeal
(Against
Interest for
delayed
refund)
HC Appeal
(Against
Sanctioned
Refund)
Period Refund and
Interest amount
Dept’s
OIA dt.
26.09.2019
CESTAT
Order dt.
27.10.202
5 (Against
Interest
for
delayed
refund)
CUSAA No.
152/2026
CUSAA No.
34/2024
September 2014

Import
Commissionerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 22,48,35,292/-
+
Interest Rs.
1,53,75,038/- +
Rejected Claim Rs.
14,08,263/-
Sanction of
OIA dt.
26.09.201
9 set aside
+
Micromax
is entitled
to interest
interest
was set
aside
CUSAA No.
153/2026
CUSAA No.
41/2024
October 2014

Import
Commissionerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 33,91,47,955/-
+
Interest Rs.
2,14,63,884/-
Sanction of
OIA dt.
26.09.201
9 set aside
+
Micromax
is entitled
to interest
interest
was set
aside
CUSAA No.
155/2026
CUSAA No.
38/2024
November 2014
to January 2015

Import
Commissionerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 68,11,45,947/-
+
Interest Rs.
4,15,40,572/- +
Rejected Claim Rs.
25,46,390/-
Sanction of
OIA dt.
26.09.201
9 set aside
+
Micromax
is entitled
to interest
interest
was set
aside
CUSAA No.
154/2026
CUSAA No.
42/2024
February 2015
and March 2015

Import
Commissionerate

Sanctioned Refund
Rs. 50,15,32,437/-
+
Interest Rs.
2,95,14,840/- +
Rejected Claim Rs.
10,10,708/-
Sanction of
OIA dt.
26.09.201
9 set aside
+
Micromax
is entitled
to interest
interest
was set
aside
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 4 of 7

6. 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’).
6.1 Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 was issued
granting exemption from excise duty. The notification was amended
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.”

6.2 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.
6.3 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 5 of 7

‘CWF’) in terms of Section 27(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short
‘the Act’).
6.4 The appellant challenged the order of AA being aggrieved of
the grant of interest on the refund. The Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals)/First Appellate Authority (for short ‘FAA’) set aside the
sanction of interest. The respondent succeeded before the Customs,
Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter ‘tribunal’) and
the order of the FAA was set aside. The respondent was held entitled
to statutory interest on the refund amount. Hence, the present appeals.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the AA held
that the respondent was not entitled to refund and hence there was no
question of sanctioning statutory interest.
8. Per contra , the respondent is entitled to refund and the order of
the tribunal allowing refund has been upheld by this Court. The
contention that no interest is to be sanctioned as the refund amount is
to be deposited in the CWF does not survive.
9. The operational portion of the order of the tribunal is
reproduced below:
“11. The Issue that arises for consideration in these four
appeals is regarding payment of Interest to the appellant
on the amount which has been sanctioned to the appellant
by this Tribunal by its order dated 26.09.2023.
12. It is seen that Interest was denied to the appellant for
the reason that the principal amount was directed to be
deposited into Consumer Welfare Fund. Now that the
Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the appellant
and has held that the principal amount has to be credited
to the account of the appellant and not to the Consumer
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 6 of 7

Welfare Fund, it follows that appellant would also
become entitled for interest to be credited in the account
of the appellant. This is exactly was what also held by the
Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 09.03.2022 in
respect of the fifth refund application.
13. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated
26.09.2019 is set aside and all the four appeals are
allowed. The appellant is held entitled to payment of
interest in accordance with law in respect of the first four
refund applications on the principal amount that has
already been sanctioned.”
10. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant no longer
survives in view of the subsequent development. The respondent was
held not to be entitled to refund on the ground of unjust enrichment
but the tribunal decided the issue in favour of the respondent. The
order of the tribunal has been upheld by this Court vide order dated
27.10.2026 passed in CUSAA 34/2024, CUSAA 36/2024, CUSAA
38/2024, CUSAA 41/2024 & CUSAA 42/2024. The natural
consequence is that the statutory interest on the amount of refund due
has to be paid. No substantial question of law arises.
11. The appeals are dismissed. Pending applications are also
disposed of.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

SHAIL JAIN, J
OCTOBER 27, 2026
‘ha’

Reportable:- Yes
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:CHANCHAL
Signing Date:02.11.2026
17:01:19
CUSAA 152/2026 and connected Page 7 of 7