APHC010539072024 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: 2/2025 Between: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,, CUSTOMS COMMISSIONERATE (PREVENTIVE), D. NO. 55-17-3, 2ND FLOOR, ROAD NO.2, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520 007 ...APPELLANT AND 1. M/S DALMIA CEMENT BHARAT LIMITED, Chinnakomerla Village, Mylavaram Mandal, Jammalamadugu, Andhra Pradesh - 516 434. ...RESPONDENT pleased to set aside the impugned Final Order No. A/30300/2024- CU(DB) dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble CESTAT, Hyderabad Bench in Customs Appeal No. C/304304/2020 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/30300/2024-CU(DB) dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT, Hyderabad Bench in Customs Appeal No. C/30304/2020, pending disposal of the main Appeal IA NO: 2 OF 2025 2 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 Grant leave for filling the counter affidavit in the CEA No. 2 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. SANTHI CHANDRA (Sr. Standing Counsel for CBIC) Counsel for the Respondent: 1. LAKSHMI KUMARAN SRIDHARAN 3 The Court made the following judgment:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The respondent is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of cement. The respondent has manufacturing units at various locations across the country including a unit in Mylavaram Mandal, Jammalamadugu, Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner, for the purpose of manufacturing of cement had been importing pet coke and clearing the same after payment of appropriate customs duty. However, the basic customs duty and social welfare surcharge payable on such import, was being cleared by debiting duty credit scrips’ issued under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS), under the foreign trade policy of 2015-20. 2. The respondent, after issuance of notification No.24/2015, customs, dated 08.04.2015, had claimed exemption from payment of customs duty and social welfare surcharge, which was levied at the rate of 10% of the basic customs duty. This claim of the respondent was rejected by the assessing officer, the respondent moved an appeal before the Principal Commissioner of the Central Tax & Customs (Appeal), Guntur, who dismissed the said appeal by an order dated 27.12.2019. The respondent, moved the C.E.S.T.A.T, Hyderabad, against the said order of dismissal by way of appeal No.C/30304/2020. This appeal came to be allowed by the Tribunal by an order dated 08.05.2024. 3. Aggrieved by this order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Customs has filed the present appeal before this Court. 4 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised two preliminary objections to the maintainability of the appeal. The total amount of the social welfare surcharge, which is the subject matter of the present dispute is Rs.36,06,500/-. 5. The litigation policy of the Central Government stipulates that, Appeals should not be filed, in relation to any matter, where the 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. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent would also contend that, 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. 7. The learned Standing Counsel, for the appellant, contends that though the amount in dispute is lower than the minimum monetary value, fixed under the litigation policy, the appeal would still be maintainable as the issue before this Court is of a recurring nature. 8. The learned Standing Counsel would also contend that the issue before this Court is whether exemption of customs duty, under the 5 notification Nos.24/2015-Cus and / or 25/2015-Cus, dated 08.04.2015. The learned Standing Counsel would contend that, a dispute as to whether import of certain products is exempted or not cannot be treated as a dispute relating to the rate of tax or the value of goods. 9. A Division Bench of this Court in CEA No.4 of 2025, passed today, had considered the question of whether a dispute relating to whether the goods are covered by the exemption notification can be raised only by way of an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. In that view of the matter, it must be held that, the present appeal, which raises a dispute regarding an exemption notification, is not maintainable before this Court and the same can be filed only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 11. Accordingly, this Central Excise Appeal is dismissed. 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 6 173 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CEA.No.2 of 2025 Dated 24.02.2026 U DSB