APHC010392672024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS NO: 4/2025 Between: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE (PREVENTIVE), D.NO.55-17-3,2ND FLOOR, ROAD NO.2, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE. AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-520007 ...APPELLANT AND 1. EMAMI AGROTECH LTD, Survey No. 501-510, Near Zero Point. Krishnapatnam Port, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh-524 323. ...RESPONDENT begs to present this Memorandum of Customs Appeal, being aggrieved by the Final Order No. A/30089-30170/2024 dated 29.02.2024 (Annexure-P.l) passed by the Honble Customs. Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Regional Bench. Hyderabad (for brevity CESTAT) in Appeal No. C/30437-30518/2021 filed by Emami Agrotech Ltd., Krishnapatnam Port, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh-524 323. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay the operation of the impugned Final Order No. A/30089-30170/2024 dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Hon’ble 2 CESTAT, Hyderabad Bench in Customs Appeal No. C/30437- 30518/2021 , pending disposal of the main Appeal and to pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ANIL KUMAR BEZAWADA 3 The Court made the following judgment:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent which is engaged in the business of refining and selling of edible oils, had imported crude edible grade palm oil, under 82 bills of entry, which are the subject matter of the present Appeal. The respondent, claimed exemption from payment of customs duty in view of Notification Nos.24/2015-Cus and / or 25/2015-Cus, dated 08.04.2015. These notifications provided exemption from payment of the whole of the duty of customs leviable under the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the whole of the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Customs Department, rejected this contention of the respondent, on the ground that, the respondent had paid the customs duty, by way of redemption of scrips (MEIS/SEIS). The respondent was also called upon to pay Social Welfare Surcharge calculated, at 10% of the value of the Basic Customs Duty of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Aggrieved by the view taken by the Authorities, the respondent approached the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Guntur, by way of Appeals, under the provisions of the Customs Act. The Principal Commissioner rejected the Appeals filed by the respondent, by a common order, dated 24.05.2021, in Appeal Nos.001 to 082-2021-22. Aggrieved by this Order, the respondent filed Customs Appeal No.30437 of 2021 to Customs Appeal No.30518 of 2021. These Appeals came to be disposed of, by way of a common 4 order, dated 29.02.2024, by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Commissioner of Customs, Customs Commissionerate (Preventive), has filed the present Appeal. 4. Sri Sujit Ghosh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Anil Kumar Bezawada, learned counsel for the respondent, has raised three preliminary objections, as to the maintainability of the Appeal. The said objections are as follows: (i). The respondent had filed 82 Appeals before the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Guntur and another set of 82 Appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. These Appeals had been disposed of, by way of common order, by both the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Customs (Appeals), Guntur as well as the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, 82 Appeals needed to be filed against the Orders of C.E.S.T.AT. The appellant has filed only 1 Appeal against the Common Order, passed in 82 Appeals, and the same is not maintainable. It is contended that, the appellant was required to file 82 Appeals and cannot file 1 Appeal, against the Orders, passed in 82 Appeals. (ii). The litigation policy of the Central Government stipulates that, Appeals should not be filed, in relation to any matter, where the 5 value of the policy does not cross one crore. In the present case, most of the orders, in Appeals, relate to a value, which is below one crore and consequently, all the Appeals, where the value does not cross one crore, could have been withdrawn and could not have been filed by the appellant. (iii). Section 130 of the Customs Act, stipulates that, any Appeal against the Order of C.E.S.T.A.T., relating to the rate of tax or the value of the goods, for the purpose of calculating the tax, cannot be filed before the High Court and would have to be filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance is also placed on Section 130-E of the Customs Act. 5. Sri Sujit Ghosh, the learned Senior Counsel would rely upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Navin Chemicals Mfg. and Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs1 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore-1 Vs. Motorola India Ltd. 2. The learned Senior Counsel would also rely upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad – IV Vs. Shriram Refigeration Industries 3. 6. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that, the primary issue in all these Appeals is whether the petitioner is entitled to an 1 (1993) 4 SCC 320 2 (2019) 9 SCC 563 3 2009 (240) E.L.T. 201 (A.P.) 6 exemption from payment of customs duty, under Notification Nos.24/2015-Cus and / or 25/2015-Cus, dated 08.04.2015 and the Courts have held that, the question of exemption would be a question of rate of duty. He further contends that, the same would be barred by virtue of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. Smt.Santhi Chandra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the aforesaid objections, as to the maintainability of the appeal are not valid. Learned Standing Counsel would contend that, it would be permissible for the appellant, to file an appeal against the order passed in the 82 appeals before the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad. For this purpose, she relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Kusum Ansal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 14. 8. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that, the litigation policy of the Central Government itself stipulates that the monetary value of an appeal would not be relevant where the issue is a recurring issue. She would submit that in the present case, the question of whether there is an exemption for payment of additional duty on import and whether such duty can be cleared by way of redemption of scrips’ is a recurring issue as this issue arises every year, not only in relation to the respondent but also in relation to various other persons importing crude edible grade palm oil. 4 (1991)190 ITR24 (DELHI) 7 9. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that, the issue in the present case is not whether there is an exemption under the notification dated 08.04.2015, but whether such exemption can be taken by the payment of customs duty only by reduction of scrips’. In such circumstances, the issue raised is not an issue relating to rate of tax or value of the goods. She would contend that, in such circumstances the present appeal would be maintainable and there is no necessity to approach the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in this regard. 10. Though Sri Sujit Ghosh, the learned Senior Counsel has raised three objections to the maintainability of the appeal, we deem it appropriate to consider the issue of whether the appeal should go before the Hon’ble Supreme Court or before this Court, as a decision in this regard would be sufficient for the present. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Motorola India Ltd.,5 had set out the categories of cases, in which appeals against the orders of the Tribunal would have to be moved only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed in this regard as follows: 5 (2019) 9 SCC 563 8 18. We are of the considered view that the legislature has carved out only following categories of cases to which it has intended to give a special treatment of providing an appeal directly to this Court. “(i). determination of a question relating to a rate of duty; (ii). Determination of a question relating to the valuation of goods for the purpose of assessment; (iii). determination of a question relating to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; (iv). Whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for.” 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that, any order of the Tribunal relating to the issue of whether certain goods are covered by an exemption notification, can be appealed only to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13. In the present case, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant clearly states that, the dispute between the appellant and the respondent is whether there is a outright exemption for payment of customs duty to the course of import of edible grade palm oil or whether there is no such exemption available and the customs duty would have to be paid only in the form of scrips’. 14. The issued raised in the present appeal is whether Social Welfare Surcharge is payable at the rate of 10% of the value of the basic customs duty payable under the Customs Act. The contention of the respondent was that, the import of crude edible grade palm oil is exempted from 9 payment of customs duty by virtue of notification dated 08.04.2016, and consequently no Social Welfare Surcharge is payable. The contention of the revenue is that, there is no exemption on the import of the crude edible grade palm oil and the only concession given to the importer is that he can pay the customs by redemption of scrips’ (MEIS/SEIS). The revenue further contends that, as there is no exemption on basic customs duty, the importer would have to pay Social Welfare Surcharge calculated at 10% of the basic customs duty. 15. The central issue is clearly whether the import of crude edible grade palm oil is exempted by virtue of notification dated 08.04.2015 or not. As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already held that an appeal on a question of exemption would be maintainable only before the Supreme Court, the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court. 16. In the circumstance, this Central Excise Appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to appellant to approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Dt.24.02.2026 DSB 10 174 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CEA.No.4 of 2025 Dated 24.02.2026 U DSB