Maruti Fabric Impex vs CE & CGST Noida

Court
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO.I

Customs Appeal No.70412 of 2020

(Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-27 to 52-2019-2020,
dated 14.05.2020 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods & Services
Tax, Noida)

M/s Maruti Fabric Impex, …..Appellant
(455/106, Khera Kalan, New Delhi 110082)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs, Noida ….Respondent
(Concor Complex, Container Depot,
Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P.-201311)


WITH


(i) Customs Appeal No.70503 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(ii) Customs Appeal No.70504 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(iii) Customs Appeal No.70505 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(iv) Customs Appeal No.70506 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(v) Customs Appeal No.70507 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(vi) Customs Appeal No.70508 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(vii) Customs Appeal No.70509 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(viii) Customs Appeal No.70510 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(ix) Customs Appeal No.70511 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(x) Customs Appeal No.70512 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xi) Customs Appeal No.70513 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xii) Customs Appeal No.70514 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xiii) Customs Appeal No.70556 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xiv) Customs Appeal No.70557 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xv) Customs Appeal No.70558 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xvi) Customs Appeal No.70559 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


2
(xvii) Customs Appeal No.70560 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xviii) Customs Appeal No.70561 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida);
(xix) Customs Appeal No.70562 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xx) Customs Appeal No.70650 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xxi) Customs Appeal No.70651 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xxii) Customs Appeal No.70652 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xxiii) Customs Appeal No.70653 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xxiv) Customs Appeal No.70654 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );
(xxv) Customs Appeal No.70655 of 2021
(Maruti Fabric Impex V/s C. C. Noida );

(Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. NOI-CUSTM-000-APP-27 to 52-2019-2020,
dated 14.05.2020 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Goods & Services
Tax, Noida)


A PPEARANCE :
Ms. Prerna Jain Kala, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri N. Mohan Krishna, Authorized Representative &
Shri Santosh Kumar, Authorized Representative for the Respondent

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
HON’BLE MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)


FINAL ORDER NOs.-70327-70352/2026

DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2026
DATE OF DECISION : 07.09.2026


P. K. CHOUDHARY:

All the above Appeals are taken up together as the issue
involved in all the appeals is primarily as to whether the Appeals
filed by the Appellant were correctly rejected by the learned
Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the Appellant has accepted
the enhancement of the value in writing at the time of clearance
of the consignment in question.
2. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant
contended that the Appellant M/s Maruti Fabric Impex, is engaged

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


3
in the business of importing ‘Polyester Knitted Fabrics of Mixed
Colour, Weight and Length’ from China. The Appellant imported a
consignment of Polyester Knitted Fabrics and filed 26(Twenty Six)
Bills of Entry detailed in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal, declaring
the transaction value at USD 1.35 per kg, in accordance with the
commercial invoice issued by the foreign supplier.
3. Upon examination, the imported goods were found to be in
conformity with the declarations made in the Bills of Entry. There
was no allegation regarding the description, quantity or nature of
the goods.
4. The learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant contended
that the Appellant is a regular Importer of different kinds of
Fabrics and have imported 26 consignments of fabrics from China
during the period from 07.06.2019 to 07.08.2019 at ICD, Dadri
against negotiated price. It has further been contended that the
Appellant had self-assessed the duty correctly as per the
respective Invoices. However, no ‘Out of Charge Orders’ were
passed. The Appellant made written requests to the Proper Officer
to clear the consignments provisionally paying duty on the
enhanced value under protest in Order to avoid delay in clearance
of consignments and the losses on account of demurrage and
detention. According to the Appellant, no cognizance was taken
by the Proper Officer despite several written requests made for
clearance of consignment on enhanced value under protest.
Finally, the Appellant was coerced to submit letters of consent
agreeing to assessment/valuation by the Customs Authorities. The
Appellant further contended that the Customs Authorities without
observing the mandate of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962,
discarded the declared transaction value and enhanced the value
on the basis of the consent letter.
5. The learned Advocate submitted that since the acceptance
letters were not voluntary, the Appellant wrote several letters
requesting the learned Assessing Officer to issue Speaking Orders.
However, no speaking Order was passed. Hence, the Appellant
filed respective Appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals)
against the assessment made in the respective Bills of Entry. The
Appellate Authority sought comments from the Department on the
Appeals filed by the Appellant, wherein the Department contended

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


4
that the re-assessment has been done under Section 17(4) of the
Customs Act, 1962 on the basis of written consent, therefore, no
speaking Order was passed. All the Appeals were rejected merely
on the ground that since the Appellant has accepted the
enhancement of value in writing, there was no requirement of
issuance of speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs
Act, 1962 and therefore, the assessable value determined by the
Adjudicating Authority on reassessment of imported goods in the
Bills of Entry and accepted by the Appellant in writing was legal
and binding on the Appellant.
6. Learned Counsel further submitted that the letter of
acceptance which has been re-produced in the Orders-in-Appeal
does not provide any evidence of contemporaneous import and
merely mentions that the declared value is liable to be rejected
and redetermined on the basis of the data of contemporaneous
import. It is further submitted that merely mentioning that the
declared value is liable to be rejected and the same is liable to be
assessed at a particular price, does not meet the requirement of
1
Customs Valuations Rules, 2007 as even for applying Rule 5 of
CVR, 2007, several parameters like quantity in comparable
commercial transactions, GSM, quality, time of placement of
Order for import etc. has to be fulfilled.
7. The learned Advocate also submitted that similar letters of
acceptance were submitted by the importers in the case of
Hanuman Prasad & ors. and in the Appeals filed by them, the
learned Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the enhancement of
value merely on the basis of letter of acceptance. The Department
filed Appeals against the Orders of the learned Commissioner
(Appeal) wherein the Tribunal allowed the Appeals holding that
once letter of acceptance has been submitted, the importers
cannot question the assessment later on. The said importer filed
Appeals before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi titled as Niraj Silk
Mills vs. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. - CUSAA 26/2022. The
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi after analyzing the provisions of law
and judgments, allowed the Appeals. The present Appeals are
squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court.

1
CVR, 2007

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


5
8. The learned Advocate further submitted that the mandate
of Rule 12(2) of CVR, 2007 is to intimate the importer in writing
the ground of doubting the truth of accuracy of the declared value.
9. The learned Advocate also relied on the following
judgements:-
I. M/s Century Metal Recycling Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of
Customs, Faridabad. Customs Appeal No.61303 of
2019 decided vide Final Order No.60266-60349/2025
dated 27.02.2025 by CESTAT Bench at Chandigarh.
II. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj Vs. M/s Artex
Textile Private Limited-Customs Appeal
Nos.51414,52809 and 52810 to 52864 of 2019
decided vide Final Order No.50769-50825/2020 dated
14.09.2020 2025 by CESTAT Bench at New Delhi.
10. The learned Departmental Authorized Representative
reiterated the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) and has
drawn our attention to the acceptance letter submitted by the
Appellant agreeing to enhancement of value in writing. The
learned Departmental Authorized Representative submitted that
the Appellant had accepted the enhancement of value in writing
stating that they have gone through the details narrated by the
concerned Officer including the grounds of rejection of declared
value and understood the details of contemporaneous import of
similar/identical goods and that they fully agree with the
enhancement of value and that they do not want show cause
2
notice or speaking Order. Based on the said letter of acceptance,
the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the
reassessment of the Appellants import consignments were done
by the Assessing Officers only after disclosing all the ingredients
of reassessment to the Appellant and after acceptance in writing
and hence no speaking Order was required to be passed under
Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Ld. Departmental
Authorized Representative relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
High Court of Allahabad in the case of M/s S. S. Overseas & Ors.
being Writ Tax No.881/2022 and submitted that the Hon’ble High
Court has held that once acceptance of enhancement of value by

2
SCN

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


6
the importer is made in writing there is no requirement of issuance
of Speaking Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.
The Ld. Departmental Authorized Representative further
submitted that this judgment of the Hon’ble High Court has also
been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court being SLP (Civil)
No.38571/2023 titled as M/s S. S. Overseas vs. Union of India &
Anr. Hence, according to the Departmental Authorized
Representative, there is no infirmity in the Orders passed by the
Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).
11. The learned Advocate for the Appellant, in their written
submissions have submitted that the issues in M/s S. S. Overseas
& Ors. were entirely different in as much as it was the case of
provisional assessment and non-issuance of finalized Bills of
Entry. In any case, the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was
merely dismissal of the SLP which does not operate as merger
with the Order of the High Court. In this regard, the Ld. Advocate
relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. (2000) 6
Supreme Court Cases 359.
12. Heard both the sides and perused the appeal records.
13. We have examined the impugned Orders-in-Appeal vide
which the Appeals filed by the Appellant were rejected holding that
the Appellant has accepted the enhancement of value in writing
and therefore, there was no question of issuance of Speaking
Order under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962. From the
impugned Orders-in-Appeal, it is further revealed that the
Appellate Authority sought parawise comments from the
Department and in response, the Department filed parawise
comments and the acceptance letters regarding enhancement of
assessable value by the Appellant. However, we find that none of
the letters written by the Appellant seeking clearance of the
consignments either provisionally or finally on payment of duty on
enhanced assessable value under protest have been referred too.
We have seen the letters written by the Appellant requesting the
clearance of consignments either provisionally or finally on
payment of duty on enhanced value under protest which clearly
proved that it was not the case of acceptance of enhancement of
value simplicitor.

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


7
14. We find that the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals)
merely proceeded on the ground that the Appellant had accepted
the enhancement of value under Section 17(5) of the Customs
Act, 1962 and therefore, there was no requirement of issuance of
Speaking Order. The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to the
judgment of Century Metal Recycling (supra) for rejecting the
Appeal, more specifically relying on Para 26 to hold that there was
no any general or omnibus direction has been passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that the transaction value
declared in the bills of entry should invariably be accepted in all
cases. However, it is seen that the Commissioner (Appeals) has
failed to take on account the ratio of the judgment in entirety. The
issue as to whether assessable value can be rejected without
following the mandate of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962,
read with Rule 12 of CVR, 2007 and the declared transactional
value be re-determined following sequentially from Rule 4 to 5 of
CVR, 2007, is no more res-integra as the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the case of Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI reported
in 2019 (367) E.L.T. 3 (SC) has held that the mandate of Rule
12(2) of CVR, 2007 to intimate the importer in writing the ground
of doubting the truth of accuracy of the declared value cannot be
ignored or waived. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-

“…….As per sub-rule (2) of Rule 12, the proper officer when
required must intimate to the importer in writing the
grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the value
declared. The said mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 12
cannot be ignored or waived. Formation of opinion regarding
reasonable doubt as to the truth or accuracy of the valuation
and communication of the said grounds to the importer is
mandatory, subterfuge to by-pass and circumvent the
statutory mandate is unacceptable. Formation of belief and
recording of reasons as to reasonable doubt and
communication of the reasons when required is the only way
and manner in which the proper officer in terms of Rule 12
can proceed to make assessment under Rules 4 to 9 after
rejecting the transaction value as declared.

21. The mandate to record reasons at the second stage of
enquiry is not expressly stipulated, albeit it has been read
by us by implication in Rule 12. Being conscious that this
mandate if applied to past cases would possibly lead to
complications and difficulties, we would invoke the doctrine

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


8
of prospective application with the direction that the past
cases will be decided on a case to case basis, depending
upon the factual matrix and considerations like whether the
importer has asked for ‘certain reasons’, whether the
reasons were not communicated, whether ‘certain reasons’
can be deciphered from the assessment/valuation Order,
whether mis-description or false declaration was apparent,
etc.”

15. We notice that in the present case, all bills of entry are dated
07.06.2019 to 07.08.2019 and therefore, the Proper Officer was
duty bound to communicate the reasons for rejection of the
transaction value in writing as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. We find that in the Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) facts were also similar to the present case in as much as
in that case also requests for provisional assessment by the
importer was ignored and the importer was forced to submit letter
of acceptance. We further find that although the letter of
acceptance states that the ground for rejection of the declared
value has been narrated to the Appellant and that details of
contemporaneous import of similar and identical goods have been
shown to them and on the basis of which, the Appellant accepted
that their value were significantly lower than the value at which
identical/similar goods imported at or about the same time in
comparable commercial transactions were assessed at other ports
of the country, however, no such details of alleged
contemporaneous import data have been mentioned.
16. We further find that the issue as to whether the Department
can enhance the value relying on NIDB data and on the basis of
the acceptance letter and once there is acceptance letters, the
importer cannot contest the same also came up for consideration
before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Niraj Silk Mills
vs. Commissioner of Customs (ICD) Patparganj passed in CUSAA
26/2022 and the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated
27.11.2024 has held that the right to question the correctness of
the decision of the proper officer, be it with respect to the
formation of opinion or even on merits, is one which is protected
by statute. The Hon’ble High Court formulated the question of law
as under:-

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


9
“Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in holding that the
appellants in the above-mentioned matter could not
question the enhancement made concerning the valuation
of the imported goods, once the appellants had given up
their right to seek issuance of a show cause notice and/or
speaking Order under Section 17 of the Customs Act,
1962?”
The Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment held as under:-

“83. That then takes us to the concession which the importer
could tender and which would require us to identify the
subject in respect of which that concession may be made.
When we examine this aspect on the anvil of Section 17(5),
it becomes apparent that the statute speaks of the
concession being with reference to the reassessment made
under Section 17(4). It thus proceeds to provide that in a
case where the importer confirms his acceptance of the
reassessment in writing, the proper officer would stand
relieved of the obligation of passing a speaking Order in
respect of such reassessment. In all other cases and where
the reassessment is not acceded to, the proper officer is
obliged to pass a speaking Order. Thus, the waiver or
concession is at best confined to the speaking Order which
the proper officer is obliged to frame in affirmation of the
provisional opinion that it may have formed under Section
17(4).
84. We find ourselves unable to construe Rule 12(2) as
contemplating any concession or waiver at least in explicit
terms. All that Rule 12(2) stipulates is that the proper officer
would intimate to the importer the grounds for doubting the
declared value at its request. It is in the aforesaid context
that we would thus have to adjudge whether the CESTAT
was correct in holding that the exchange of communications
amounted to a waiver or abandonment not just of the right
to question and assail the reassessment but to impugn it in
further proceedings in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the Act.
85. In our considered opinion, the perceived concession
made in respect of the opinion harboured by the proper
officer cannot possibly be interpreted or construed as

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


10
detracting from or depriving the importer of the right to
question the decision of the proper officer in accordance
with law. The right to question the correctness of the
decision of the proper officer, be it with respect to the
formation of opinion or even on merits, is one which is
protected by statute. The question, which as a sequitur,
arises is whether that right itself can be said to have been
abandoned.”
17. The impugned order proceeds on the footing that once the
Appellant confirmed acceptance of the re-assessed value in writing,
no speaking order was required under Section 17(5) of the Customs
Act, and that this acceptance also forecloses the right to challenge the
enhancement itself. This conflates two distinct things- the limited
procedural waiver of a speaking order, and the independent,
substantive right of appeal conferred by Section 128 of the Act.
18. This precise question stands authoritatively settled in the
Appellant's favour by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hanuman Prasad
and Niraj Silk Mills v. Commissioner of Customs (ICD),
Patparganj, CUSAA 26/2022 (with CUSAA 27/2022), decided
27.11.2024 and the principles in the said decision is has been
consistently and repeatedly applied by the Tribunal on identical facts
(acceptance/consent letters obtained at the threshold of clearance of
imported fabric/scrap consignments) in the following very recent
orders:
i. M/s Artex Textile Pvt. Ltd. (Supra)
ii. M/s Jai Mata Di Trading (Supra)

iii. M/s MKY Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (Supra)
19. In each of these decisions, the Tribunal found that letters of
acceptance which merely recite that contemporaneous import data
was "gone through and understood", without disclosing the actual
comparable data (quantity, quality, contemporaneity), cannot be read
as an unconditional and voluntary surrender of the right to contest
valuation. The same reasoning applies squarely to the facts of the
present case.
20. There can be no estoppel against a statute, and that
acquiescence or consent by an assessee cannot operate to defeat
rights conferred by law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dunlop India

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


11
Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v. Union of India, 1983 (13)
E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.) has held that there is no estoppel in law,
particularly in taxation matters, against a party seeking to assert a
statutory right.
21. This principle has consistently been followed, including by the
Tribunal in Hero Motors Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad, 2014 (307)
E.L.T. 138 (Tri-Del) , holding that there are no estoppels in taxation
matters and that consent given by an assessee cannot take away a
right otherwise available under law; and by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India, 1984
(16) E.L.T. 171 (S.C.) .
22. The reliance placed by the Department upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in M/s S.S. Overseas v. Union of
India, Writ Tax No. 881 of 2022, decided 03.08.2022, which dismissed
a batch of writ petitions filed by importers seeking a writ of mandamus
directing issuance of a speaking order under Section 17(5) is
irrelevant.
23. We find that M/s S.S. Overseas answers a narrow question,
whether a writ of mandamus lies for issuance of a speaking order once
acceptance has been given and does not, either expressly or by
necessary implication, adjudicate upon or foreclose the independent
statutory right of appeal against the assessment/re-assessment itself
under Section 128 of the Customs Act. No such appeal was under
consideration before the Hon'ble High Court in that writ jurisdiction.
24. This very submission has already been examined, and
effectively accepted and the said decision of the Hon’ble High Court
was distinguished, by a coordinate Bench of this very Tribunal in MKY
Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & CGST,
Noida (Final Order Nos. 70385-70424/2025 dated
25.06.2025) and proceeded to apply Niraj Silk Mills in its entirety
and allowed the appeal, thereby declining to treat the Department's
reliance on S.S. Overseas as a bar to the appeals on merits.
25. The Department again seeks to press S.S. Overseas in the
present proceedings, the identical argument stands already
considered and not accepted as determinative by a coordinate Bench
of this Tribunal, and S.S. Overseas ought to be treated as confined to

C/70412/2020, C/70503 to 70514/2021,
C/70556 to 70562/2021 & C/70650 to 70655/2021


12
its own narrow controversy of mandamus for a speaking order, and
not as authority for the proposition that an acceptance letter
forecloses the statutory right of appeal.
26. In view of the above discussions, it is our considered view that
the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Niraj Silk Mills
(supra) and therefore, the impugned Orders-In-Appeal is not
sustainable in law and accordingly, we set aside the same with
consequential relief, if any, as per law.

(Order pronounced in open court on 07.09.2026)


Sd/-
(P. K. CHOUDHARY)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)


Sd/-
(K. ANPAZHAKAN)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Nihal