TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 771
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dv., Ms. Taniya Roy, Ld. Adv. For the Appellants (CUSTA 21 of 2025 CUSTA 22 of 2025 & CUSTA 25 of 2025): Mr. Tapan Bhanja, Ld. Adv. For the Respondents (CUSTA 21 of 2025, CUSTA 22 of 2025 & CUSTA 25 of 2025): Mr. Arnab Chakraborty, Ld. Adv., Mr. Aniket Chaudhury, Ld. Adv., Ms. Shreya Mundhra, Ld. Adv. JUDGMENT PER UDAY KUMAR, J:- 1. The present batch of statutory appeals has been preferred by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, assailing the various final orders passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata. As these matters are listed before us for formal admission, we are tasked with the preliminary evaluation of whether the memorandums of appeal di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondent to demonstrate, at the inception, that no substantial question of law exists. The Court should borrow the procedural fairness inherent in civil appellate law. 3. In support of this prayer, the Respondents have placed reliance on the principles articulated in Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad (2024) 4 SCC 696, Nusli Neville Wadia v. Ivory Properties (2020) 6 SCC 557, and Commissioner of Customs v. Motorola India Ltd. (2019) 9 SCC 563, arguing that jurisdictional challenges based on the applicability of an exemption notification (Notification No. 104/2009-Cus), directly relates to the "rate of duty" under Section 130E, must be addressed at the earliest possible stage to ensure judicial economy. They contend that the Court should not pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts as a sentinel to determine if a "substantial question of law" exists based solely on the memorandum of appeal. Any participation by the Respondent at this stage is, therefore, legally alien to the Act. 7. Learned Counsel relies heavily on the Supreme Court's interpretation in R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs v. Rajmani & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine SC 762), arguing that the legislature intentionally crafted a two-step process, an ex-parte admission followed by a fully contested final hearing under Section 130(5). They submit that allowing the Respondent to intervene now would "invert this sequence" and turn a summary screening process into a full-blown trial and final hearing. 8. Furthermore, the Revenue pointed out that no formal caveat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st first recognize that the Customs Act, 1962, is not merely a collection of sections but a meticulously crafted procedural ladder. The legislature, in its wisdom, has designed Section 130 to be a specialized appellate path. When we look at the sequence mandated by the Act, it becomes evident that the admission stage is intended to be a swift, preliminary filter. The Court's primary duty at this juncture is to examine the memorandum of appeal and determine if, on the face of it, a "substantial question of law" exists. This is not the moment for a trial on the merits; it is a moment for the Court to exercise its judicial mind in an inquisitorial capacity to ensure that only appeals raising significant legal questions reach the final hearing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Act is that of an appellate authority operating within a limited statutory framework. We find the reasoning of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Nagaraj (Dead) through LRs v. Rajmani & Ors. (supra) to be the guiding light here. The Apex Court has explicitly underscored why the respondent is not a necessary participant at this stage: "The reason for giving this right to the respondent for raising such objection at the time of hearing is because the High Court frames the question at the stage of admission, which is prior to issuance of notice of appeal to the respondent. In other words, the question is framed ex-parte and, therefore, sub-section (5) enables him to raise such objection at the time of hearing..." 15. This observatio....