Partial Relief to Maggie: Delhi HC Rules Delay Not Prejudicial, Remands Matter to CESTAT for Merits Review [Read Order]
Considering the provisional assessment and the ₹2.80 crore already paid, the Court gave the petitioner another chance to file a reply on merits and asked CESTAT to hear the matter again
![Partial Relief to Maggie: Delhi HC Rules Delay Not Prejudicial, Remands Matter to CESTAT for Merits Review [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Delhi-High-Court-Maggie-Partial-Relief-to-Maggie-taxscan.jpg "Partial Relief to Maggie: Delhi HC Rules Delay Not Prejudicial, Remands Matter to CESTAT for Merits Review [Read Order]")
The Delhi High Court, while holding that the delay between 2017 and 2021 in adjudicating the Show Cause Notice did not cause any serious prejudice, granted partial relief by setting aside the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) order and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing on merits. Maggie Marketing Private Limited, petitioner-assessee, imported goods in...
The Delhi High Court, while holding that the delay between 2017 and 2021 in adjudicating the Show Cause Notice did not cause any serious prejudice, granted partial relief by setting aside the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) order and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing on merits.
Maggie Marketing Private Limited, petitioner-assessee, imported goods in 2017, which were seized by the Department on 24th April 2017 for alleged misdeclaration. The Delhi High Court later allowed provisional release of the goods upon payment of differential duty.
A Show Cause Notice was issued in October 2017, alleging intellectual property rights violations. The petitioner filed an interim reply raising a limitation objection under Section 28 of the Customs Act but did not submit a detailed reply on merits.
BECOME A GOVT. CERTIFIED GST PRACTITIONER - Click Here
In June 2021, the Department passed an Order-in-Original rejecting the limitation plea. It reassessed the value of goods at ₹10.79 crore, confirmed a differential duty demand of ₹2.50 crore, ordered absolute confiscation of goods worth ₹59.78 lakh, and imposed a penalty of ₹2.50 crore on the company. Personal penalties were also imposed on a director, Shri Siddharth Sharma.
The assessee appealed to CESTAT, again raising only the limitation issue. On 21st August 2024, CESTAT dismissed the appeal, noting that no response on merits had been filed and upheld the Department’s findings.
The assessee’s counsel argued that the delay from 2017 to 2021 in deciding the Show Cause Notice made the proceedings invalid. He relied on the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Vos Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and similar cases.
BECOME A GOVT. CERTIFIED GST PRACTITIONER - Click Here
He also claimed that the assessee wasn’t given a chance to respond on merits, so the Department should not have decided the case on that basis.
The division bench of Prathiba M.Singh(Judge) and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta(Judge) held that the delay from 2017 to 2021 was not long enough to cause any serious prejudice and noted that the assessee had the opportunity to file a reply on merits but failed to do so. It observed that relying only on the limitation argument suggested there might not be a strong case on merits.
However, since a provisional assessment had been made and ₹2.80 crores were already deposited, the Court decided to give the assessee another opportunity. It set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 21st August 2024 and remanded the case to CESTAT.
BECOME A GOVT. CERTIFIED GST PRACTITIONER - Click Here
The assessee was allowed to file a reply on merits within one month, and the matter was listed before CESTAT on 5th May 2025.
In short the writ petition was disposed of.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
