Delhi High Court - Orders
Soni E Vehicle Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs Icd ... on 11 December, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 5178/2023
SONI E VEHICLE PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahil Ahmed And Mr. Jeeshan,
Advs.
versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD TUGHLAKABAD NEW
DELHI ...Respondent
Through: Adv. Aditya Singla, SSC, CBIC with
Mr. Dhananjay Gautam, Ms. Arya
Suresh Nair, Mr. Akhil Sharma and
Mr. Shreya Lamba, Advs.
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr.
Aryan Dhaka and Ms. Ira Singh
Advs. for R-3&5.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN
ORDER
% 11.12.2025
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CM APPL. 78177/2025 (for condonation of delay)
2. This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 96 days in filing the review petition.
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
4. The application is disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 618/2025 & CM APPL. 78176/2025
5. The present review petition has been filed by the Respondent- Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi under Section 114 read with order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the order dated 31st July, 2025 (hereinafter, 'the order').
W.P.(C) 5178/2023 Page 1 of 5This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 21:14:50
6. Vide the said order, the Petitioner was permitted to approach the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, 'CESTAT') challenging the impugned Order-in-Original dated 20th August, 2020.
7. However, in the order, the amount of pre-deposit was reduced to Rs.5,50,000/-. The operative portion of the order reads as under:
10. The Court has also perused the photographs of the parts which have been imported and are placed on record from pages 220 to 223 of this writ petition. The question that would arise before the CESTAT is whether the subject matter consignment would constitute components of E-
Rikshaw or E-Rikshaw themselves. This issue ought to be determined by the CESTAT. Upon querying the Court is informed that the goods continue to lie confiscated with the Customs.
11. Considering the facts that there is an enormous push being given to environmentally safer and friendly vehicles in the country, the confiscation of the E-Rikshaw in this matter would benefit no one in the prima facie opinion of this Court. The matter deserves adjudication on merits by the CESTAT.
12. Under such circumstances and bearing in mind the financial constraints of the Petitioner-company, which is engaged in importing E-Rikshaw/components, this Court is of the view that pre-deposit can be reduced to a sum of Rs 5.5 lakhs. Accordingly, let the pre-deposit of Rs.5.5 lakhs be made within a month from today, i.e., 31st July, 2025 before the CESTAT.
13. Let this appeal along with the appeal filed by the Director be adjudicated against the Order-in-Original dated 20th August, 2020, on merits. The question of applicability or the validity of the impugned Office Order and the question as to whether the imported components constituted E-Rikshaw themselves shall also be adjudicated W.P.(C) 5178/2023 Page 2 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 21:14:50 by the CESTAT.
14. Since the goods are lying with the Customs, the CESTAT shall pass the orders in this matter by 15th November, 2025, once the pre-deposit is made.
15. List before the CESTAT on 04th September, 2025.
16. Needless to add that any observation made herein would not have bearing on the final adjudication.
17. The present petition, along with any pending application, is disposed of in the above terms.
8. The grievance of the Customs Department is that the pre-deposit amount could not have been reduced to Rs.5,50,000/- and the entire pre- deposit, as per law, ought to have been paid.
9. Additionally, the Court has been informed that since there was a direction to the CESTAT for passing the order by 15th November, 2025, the CESTAT has considered the appeal filed by the Petitioner and the Order-in- Original dated 20th August, 2020 has been set aside.
10. The CESTAT's order dated 17th November, 2025 in a batch of appeals including Customs Appeal no. 51367 of 2025 titled 'M/s Soni E Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., through its Manager Mr. Ankit Sharma v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)'(hereinafter, 'CESTAT order') is taken on record. The operative portion of the CESTAT's order is set out below:
"57. It is, therefore, clear that suppression of facts should be deliberate and in taxation laws it can have only one meaning, namely that the correct information was not disclosed deliberately to escape payment of duty.W.P.(C) 5178/2023 Page 3 of 5
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 21:14:50
58. Even otherwise, the appellant had correctly described the goods in the Bills of Entry and it is only a question of classification. Merely because the department believes that the goods should have been classified under CTH 8703 and not under CTH 8708 will not mean that the extended period of limitation can be invoked.
59. The extended period of limitation contemplated under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, therefore, could not have been resorted to for the 13 previous Bills of Entry. The confirmation of demand for the 13 previous Bills of Entry has, therefore, to be set aside.
60. The impugned order also holds that the seized goods covered under the 6 live Bills of Entry were liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of the Customs Act. It is for this reason, that penalty has been imposed on the appellant under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act. It has been found that there was no mis-declaration by the appellant and so goods were not liable to confiscation. Therefore, penalty under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act could not have been imposed upon the appellant.
61. Likewise, penalty under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act could not have been imposed on the appellant for the 13 previous Bills of Entry.
62. Penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act could also not have been imposed upon the appellant for the 13 previous Bills of Entry as there was no mis-statement or suppression of facts.
63. The imposition of penalty on Anuj Sharma, Managing Director of the appellant, under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act cannot also be sustained for the aforesaid reason.
64. Penalty has also been imposed upon Professional Exim, W.P.(C) 5178/2023 Page 4 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 21:14:50 a Customs House Agent, under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act and its G-Card holder Sunil Gautam for the reason that they had a greater responsibility to ensure appropriate classification of imported goods. It has been found that there was no mis-classification of the imported goods and even otherwise the Bills of Entry had been submitted by them on the basis of the documents received by them from the importer. Penalties, therefore, could not have been imposed upon them under section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act.
65. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the impugned order dated 20.08.2020 passed by the Principal Commissioner deserves to be set aside and is set aside. All the four appeals bearing Customs Appeal No. 51376 of 2025, Customs Appeal No. 51078 of 2022, Customs Appeal No. 50217 of 2021 and Customs Appeal No. 50218 of 2021 are, accordingly, allowed."
11. Considering the subsequent fact that the Petitioner has succeeded before CESTAT and in any case, the pre-deposit would have to be refunded to the Petitioner, the review petition is in fact infructuous.
12. The review petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J.
DECEMBER 11, 2025/kp/sm W.P.(C) 5178/2023 Page 5 of 5 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/12/2025 at 21:14:50