NOKIA INDIA PV T LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (II), CHENNAI

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. III

Customs Appeal No. 40355 of 2021
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. C.Cus. I No.105/2021 dated
26.03.2021 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I),
60, Rajaji Salai, Custom House, Chennai 600 001.)

M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd. …. Appellant
th
7 Floor, Building No. 9A,
DLF Cyber City,
Sector 25A, Gurugram,
Haryana 122 002.

VERSUS

The Principal Commissioner of
Customs (Air Cargo) … Respondent
Chennai-VII,
New Custom House,
Air Cargo Complex, Chennai 600 027.


APPEARANCE :
Shri Karthik Sundaram, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Authorized Representative
for the Respondent

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No.41153/2026


DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2026
DATE OF DECISION :30.10.2026

2






Per: Shri P. Dinesha

This Appeal is filed by M/s. Nokia India Pvt. Ltd.
[Appellant herein] against the Order-in-Appeal No.
105/2021 dated 26.03.2021 passed by Commissioner of
Customs (Appeals-I), Chennai.

2. The main issue is rejection of refund claim as
upheld in the impugned order. Heard Shri Karthik
Sundaram, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, who submitted
at the outset that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred
in rejecting the Appeal both on limitation as Appeal
having been filed belatedly and also on merits, the First
Appellate Authority did not afford reasonable
opportunities to the Appellant to put forth its case on
merits though he has recorded the grounds urged in the
Grounds of Appeal before him including the crucial fact
that all the original Bills of Entry were submitted by the
Appellant and it was the Department which had misplaced
the same. He would also take us through various
documents / correspondences made with the Department
during the first round of litigation, when an application for
refund was filed and would thus submit that Department

3





having acknowledged the receipt of original documents
like Bills of Entry, now to say that the Appellant did not
file original Bills of Entry is far from truth and the
Department cannot take advantage of its own lapses to
hold against the Appellant. He would thus pray for
allowing the Appeal.

3. Per contra , Shri Sanjay Kakkar, Ld. Departmental
Representative supported the findings of the First
Appellate Authority.

4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions
and we have also perused various documents placed on
record, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the
First Appellate Authority having reproduced most of the
Grounds of Appeal urged, has not bothered to call for
explanation at least on those grounds. However, we do
not find it proper for the First Appellate Authority to have
decided, without any sufficient reasons, that the Appeal
was filed with a delay of 05 days, which was clearly
condonable, but still proceeds to hold that the Appeal was
time-barred and thus, dismissed the Appeal on the
limitation issue. Having rejected, he thereafter proceeds

4





to examine the issue on merits as well and holds that the
Original Authority had rejected the claim on the ground
that the Appellant did not produce documents or other
evidences in support of their claim. Having reproduced
the Grounds of Appeal, he could have at least given an
opportunity to the Appellant to justify their Grounds of
Appeal if the matter was required to be decided on merits
but, without giving opportunity and proceeding to decide
the Appeal on merits is a serious violation of principles of
natural justice which renders the impugned order
unsustainable.

5. Further, we even find the assertion of the
Ld. Advocate to be correct regarding limitation since the
Lower Appellate Authority has calculated the limitation
from the date of Order-in-Original and not from the date
of service. In any case, as recorded at para-6 of the
impugned order there was delay of 05 (five) days which is
clearly within the condonable period [60 + 30 days] and
hence, he should not have rejected the Appeal as barred
by limitation. If there was any delay, then the least that
was expected from him was to call for explanation either
from the Appellant or from the office of the Original

5





Authority as to the date of service, in the interest of
justice, which is not done.

6. We have perused the track consignment [filed at
page 145 of Appeal memo] issued by the postal
authorities which clearly demonstrates the actual date of
receipt and reckoned from the date of service of the
Order-in-Original, the first Appeal has been filed within
the period prescribed under the statute and hence, there
was no need for filing any application seeking condonation
of delay, which was not there.

7. We therefore set aside the impugned order allowing
the Appeal and remit the Appeal back to the file of
Commissioner (Appeals) who shall pass a de-novo order
on merits without going into the limitation and after
hearing the Appellant. It goes without saying that the
First Appellate Authority shall afford reasonable
opportunities to the Appellant and also considering the
fact that the Appellant had furnished documentary
evidences in original with the concerned official which was
misplaced by the Department itself and then take a view
in accordance with law. All the contentions are left open.

6





Considering the fact that the issue pertains to the year
2007 and that the matte had even travelled upto the
CESTAT once, we deem it appropriate to direct the First
Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal within a
period of 60 days from the date of receipt of our order by
the concerned Commissionerate. Appellant shall
cooperate with the First Appellate Authority without
seeking unnecessary adjournments.


(Order pronounced in open court on 30.10.2026)


sd/- sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)


gs