- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38486-DB CSTA No. 4 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 4 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRPORT AND AIR CARGO COMMISSIONERATE, MENZIES AVIATION BUILDING, DEVANAHALLLI, BANGALORE - 560 300. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) AND: 1. M/S. UNITED TELELINKS (BANGALORE) LTD., NO.39/13, APPAREDDY PALYA MAIN ROAD, OFF 7TH MAIN, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 038, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.Y. RAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CSTA / CUSTOMS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.130 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HONBLE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER NO.20597/24 DATED 11.07.2024 VIDE ANNEUXRE A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER IN APPEAL DATED 13.10.2017 ORDER PASSED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38486-DB CSTA No. 4 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. H.Y. Raju, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, assailing the Final Order No.20597/2024 dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'CESTAT'). 3. The following substantial questions of law are raised in the present appeal: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the fact, that the CA Certificate submitted by the assessee fails to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to any other person as rightly brought out in the Orders- In-Original and Orders-In-appeal ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in Interpretation of law, since it has not taken into consideration the claimant's own submission and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38486-DB CSTA No. 4 of 2025 inability to provide ledger abstracts/balance sheet to substantiate accounting of the claimed amount? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the law, that in the facts of the present case there has been significant procedural irregularities, by undermining the importance of para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in following the ratio of the decisions in the matter of Customs, Bangalore Vs M/s Apple India Pvt Ltd without discussing the merits of the case? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in setting aside the Order-In-Appeal, Commissioner appeal order dated 13.10.2017? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the law, that without examining the unjust enrichment clause, refund cannot be sanctioned and the said aspect was not examined by the lower authority while sanctioning the refund to the assessee at the time of finalization of assessment? 4. The factual aspects and the substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal are identical to those in CSTA No.09/2024, decided on 23.09.2025. The questions are answered in favour of the respondent-assessee and against the Revenue. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38486-DB CSTA No. 4 of 2025 5. As identical facts and substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal, following the judgment in CSTA No.09/2024, disposed of on 23.09.2025, hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i). The appeal is dismissed. (ii). The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondent- Assessee and against the appellant- Revenue. (iii). No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16