- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD 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. 9 OF 2025 C/W CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 10 OF 2025 CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 11 OF 2025 CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 12 OF 2025 IN CSTA No. 9/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S KALYANI STEELS LIMITED, HOSPET ROAD, GINIGERA 583 228, KOPPAL DIST. (REPRESENTED BY ANAND B. SHIRSAT, MANAGER (LEGAL). …APPELLANT (BY SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALORE 575 010. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER THIS CSTA / CUSTOMS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT 1962, PRAYING TO SET THE FINAL ORDER No.20228/2025 DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CESTAT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE - A) IN APPEAL No.C/21340/2016 AS NOT PROPER, CORRECT AND LEGAL, ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER, DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN CSTA No. 10/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S MUKUND LTD., HOSPET ROAD, GINIGERA 583 228. (REP. BY NAGESH NARAYAN POOJARY DGM FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS). ...APPELLANT (BY SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALORE 575 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS CSTA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT 1962, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER No.20227/2025 DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CESTAT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE A) IN APPEAL No.C/21339/2016 AS NOT PROPER, CORRECT AND LEGAL ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER IN CSTA No. 11/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LTD., BEVINAHALLI VILLAGE, HITNAL POST 583 234, KOPPAL DISTRICT. (REP. BY M. K. JAGADEESH KUMAR, SENIOR MANAGER FINANCE) ...APPELLANT (BY SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALORE 575 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARAVIND V. CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS CSTA / CUSTOMS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT 1962, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER No.20229/2025 DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CESTAT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE - A) IN APPEAL No.C/21341/2016 AS NOT PROPER, CORRECT AND LEGAL, ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. IN CSTA No. 12/2025 BETWEEN: 1. M/S SLR METALIKS LTD., SY No.632, 636, NARAYANADEVARAKERE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER VILLAGE: LOKAPPANA HOLA, TQ. H. B. HALLI, DISTRICT BELLARY 583 222, (REP. BY VENKATA RAGHAVENDRA, DGM TAXATION). ...APPELLANT (BY SRI M. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, PANAMBUR, MANGALORE 575 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL) THIS CSTA / CUSTOMS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 130 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT 1962, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER No.20230/2025 DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CESTAT, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE - A) IN APPEAL No.C/21388/2016 AS NOT PROPER, CORRECT AND LEGAL, ANSWER THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) These appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the common Final Order Nos.20227–20230/2025 dated 28.02.2025, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘CESTAT’). 2. The appellants in all these appeals have raised the following common substantial questions of law for consideration: "(1) Whether the Tribunal while deciding the eligibility of imported Metallurgical Coke Breeze classified under Custom Tariff Heading 2704 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, for exemption from Basic Customs Duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012 Cus dated 17.3.2012 (Sl No 125) has complied with the orders and directions of the Hon Supreme Court vide Order dated 18.10.2024 in Civil Appeal Diary No 17212/2024 in the case of M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive). (ii) Whether the Tribunal was required to independently examine all the contentions of the Appellant in view of the order and directions of the Supreme Court vide Order dated 18.10.2024 that all the contentions are kept open and the findings arrived at in the impugned order in the case of M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) would not come in the way - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER of considering the contentions of the Appellant in an appropriate case." 3. As all four appeals arise out of the common order, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 4. At the outset, Sri Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the dispute relates to the rate of customs duty and that the present appeal before this Court is not maintainable in view of Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submitted that any dispute concerning the rate of customs duty is subject to appeal against the order of the CESTAT before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. Per contra, Sri M. S. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the CESTAT, in the impugned order, has followed its earlier order in the case of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Civil Appeal Diary No. 17212/2024], which was the subject matter of an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that by order - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER dated 18.10.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court kept all questions open to be considered in any other appropriate case. In that view, learned counsel contended that the CESTAT committed an error in following its earlier order in the case of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited (supra). Further, learned counsel fairly submitted that, although the dispute otherwise relates to the rate of duty and any appeal in that regard is to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Act, the present appeal does not pertain to the rate of duty. Rather, it concerns the correctness of the CESTAT in relying on its earlier order. In this view, it is submitted that the present appeal is maintainable. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that the CESTAT, in the impugned order, has followed its earlier order in the case of M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited (supra). The said order was the subject matter of appeal in Civil Appeal Diary No.17212/2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER "We dispose of this appeal by bearing in mind the fact that the appellant has succeeded on the ground of limitation. Since we are not inclined to interfere in the matter on that score, all contentions which would arise to the appellant could be raised in any other appropriate case. Since we are keeping all contentions open to be raised by the appellant herein, it is needless to observe that the findings arrived at in the impugned order would not come in the way of considering the contentions which would be raised by the appellant in an appropriate case." 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, in view of the fact that all contentions were kept open by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be considered in any other appropriate case, the CESTAT ought to have considered the appellant’s case independently of the order relied upon. This submission, however, cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that all contentions which may arise in relation to the appellants could be raised in any other appropriate case. Further, it was held that the findings in the impugned order would not preclude consideration of contentions that may be raised by the appellants in an appropriate case. From the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the observations therein relate solely to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38281-DB CSTA No. 9 of 2025 C/W CSTA No. 10 of 2025 CSTA No. 11 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER the appellants, namely M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited (supra). Such observations do not, in any manner, diminish the applicability or binding nature of the CESTAT’s order in M/s Jindal Steel and Power Limited (supra) in respect of other cases. 8. The subject matter of appeal before the CESTAT was concerning the rate of custom duty. In view of Section 130E(b) of the Act, the appellants have the remedy of filing an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The present appeal, in its current form, is therefore not maintainable before this Court. 9. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21