RIDHI SIDHI OVERSEAS vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.

W.P.(C)-3391/2018HC Delhi16 September 202620 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Riddhi Sidhi Overseas, a proprietary concern, challenged a Final Order passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission. The case originated from a Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) investigation into alleged under-invoicing and misdeclaration of transaction value and Retail Sale Price (RSP) of confectionery items imported from M/s Seville Products Ltd., Dubai. The Petitioner imported 21 consignments between 2008-09 and 2010-11. Searches recovered documents showing higher declared values. The Petitioner's proprietor admitted the higher values and that the difference was paid through other individuals. The investigation quantified the differential Customs duty at Rs.1,15,88,712/-. The Petitioner voluntarily deposited Rs.85,00,000/-. A Show Cause Notice proposed re-determination of values, demand of differential duty of Rs.45,68,364/- for imports within five years, and appropriation of Rs.70,20,348/- from the deposit towards duty for imports beyond five years.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Settlement Commission's order did not amount to bringing a time-barred demand through the "back door." The Court reasoned that the Impugned Order was to be read as a whole. The Settlement Commission first settled the differential duty liability for the period within five years at Rs.45,68,364/-. It then considered the Rs.85,00,000/- already deposited and, based on the factual findings, held that Rs.70,20,348/- towards the differential duty for the period beyond five years stood appropriated. The remaining Rs.14,79,652/- was adjusted towards the settled liability of Rs.45,68,364/-. The Court found that the Petitioner had invoked the Settlement Commission's jurisdiction, made admissions, and the commission's conclusion was based on the material before it. The Court emphasized that it could not re-appreciate factual records in writ jurisdiction and found no jurisdictional error, violation of natural justice, or manifest error of law. The operative direction concerned the appropriation of an amount already voluntarily deposited, not a fresh determination or recovery under Section 28. The finality under Section 127J was noted, subject to constitutional jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Settlement Commission, by directing the appropriation of Rs.70,20,348/- towards differential duty for imports beyond five years, effectively allowed a time-barred demand through the "back door" under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962? Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the Settlement Commission's order, by appropriating Rs.70,20,348/-, amounted to bringing a time-barred demand into effect, which was impermissible under Section 28 of the Customs Act. They contended that the Settlement Commission acted without jurisdiction or committed a manifest error of law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the Settlement Commission's order was based on the Petitioner's admissions and the voluntary deposit made during the investigation. They argued that the order did not create a new demand but rather appropriated an already deposited amount based on the proprietor's statements and the Settlement Commission's findings. They relied on the principle of finality of settlement orders under Section 127J of the Customs Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 28,Section 111(d),Section 111(m),Section 127J

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 3391/2018 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment reserved on: 07.09.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 16.09.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 16.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010986722018 + W.P.(C) 3391/2018 and CM APPL. 13405/2018

RIDHI SIDHI OVERSEAS

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Prabhat Kumar, Mr. Karan Kanwal, Mr. Pralabh Mathur, Advs.

versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC, Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Mr. Hasan Haider and Mr. Anish Mishra, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN J U D G M E N T ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.

Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of Final Order No. F.-3276 to 3278/CUS/2018-SC(PB) dated 26.02.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Settlement Commission, Principal Bench, New Delhi [he

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 28

All 1,644 judgments and leading authorities on Section 28 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →