2026 (2) TMI 139 - SCH - Customs

Remand of appeals under precedent leads to remittance to High Courts and detagging for fresh hearing

Application of an earlier Supreme Court precedent led the Court to remand a large subset of pending matters: 71 appeals are ordered remitted to respective ... Application of precedent Commissioner of Customs v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] - Remand to High Courts - Remand to CESTAT - De-tagging from batch - Disposal of writ petitions in terms of precedent - Infructuous disposal - HELD THAT:- Revenue submitted that out of 75 matters falling in Category No.1, 71 matters are to be remitted to the respective High Courts and 4 matters are to be sent back to the CESTAT. We direct that in accordance with the list, the abovementioned 71 appeals are remanded to the respective High Courts. With the aforesaid, the appeals are disposed of. Revenue brought to our notice that the following matters in Category II, although in a way covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Canon [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]​​​​​​​, yet there are other issues also which require adjudication and, therefore, these matters will have to be heard. All the aforesaid Appeals are ordered to be de-tagged from the batch of Canon matters and shall be notified separately for hearing in due course. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court, referred to above. Issues: (i) Whether the listed Category I appeals should be remanded to the respective High Courts or to the CESTAT in light of this Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs v. Canon India Pvt. Ltd.; (ii) Whether specified appeals in Category II and III should be de-tagged from the Canon batch for separate hearing; (iii) Whether the Writ Petitions in Category IV are disposed by the Canon decision; (iv) Whether two matters in Category V are infructuous and can be disposed.Issue (i): Whether Category I appeals listed by the Revenue are to be remitted to the respective High Courts or sent back to the CESTAT.Analysis: The list submitted by the Revenue identifies 75 matters in Category I and seeks specific remittal destinations for individual matters. The course of action for each listed matter is determined by reference to the follow-on procedure required after the Canon judgment.Conclusion: Seventy-one of the listed Category I appeals are remanded to the respective High Courts and four of the listed Category I appeals are remanded to the CESTAT as specified.Issue (ii): Whether the matters in Category II and Category III should be de-tagged from the Canon batch and listed separately for hearing.Analysis: Certain appeals raise issues beyond or unrelated to the Canon decision which necessitate separate adjudication and individual listing.Conclusion: The identified appeals in Category II and Category III are ordered to be de-tagged from the Canon batch and to be notified separately for hearing.Issue (iii): Whether the Writ Petitions in Category IV are covered by the Canon decision and can be disposed accordingly.Analysis: The listed Writ Petitions fall within the scope of the Canon decision such that their disposal follows that order.Conclusion: The specified Writ Petitions in Category IV are disposed of in terms of the Canon judgment.Issue (iv): Whether C.A. No. 9313/2016 and C.A. No. 6127/2019 are infructuous and may be disposed of as such.Analysis: The Revenue has stated that these two matters have become infructuous.Conclusion: C.A. No. 9313/2016 and C.A. No. 6127/2019 are disposed of as infructuous.Final Conclusion: The batch of appeals is disposed by remitting specified appeals to the respective High Courts and the CESTAT, de-tagging certain matters for separate hearing, disposing specified writ petitions under the Canon decision, and declaring two matters infructuous; all pending applications stand disposed.