CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI PRINCIPAL BENCH – COURT NO. – I CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 50422 OF 2019 [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 27/2018 dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), ICD, Tughlakabad New Delhi]

RAJESH TREHAN ……APPELLANT Ground floor, 28 Regurpura Arora Arcade, Padam Singh Marg Karolbagh, New Delhi VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS)… RESPONDENT Inland Container Depot Tughlakabad New Delhi APPEARANCE:

Shri Devesh Tripathi, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Shiv Shankar, Authorised Representative for the Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

DATE OF HEARING: 05.02.2026 DATE OF DECISION: 09/03/2026 FINAL ORDER NO. 50323 /2026 P V SUBBA RAO The Order dated 11.10.2018 passed by the Commissioner¹ in the de novo proceedings pursuant to the remand order of this Tribunal in the first round of litigation by Final Order No. 54056/2017 dated 16.6.2017 in Customs Appeal No. 50689 of 2017 is assailed by Shri Rajesh Trehan² in this appeal. The relevant

1 Impugned order

2 Appellant portion of the Final Order of this Tribunal in the first round of litigation is reproduced below:

“5. Admittedly, the duty demand has been confirmed against two persons, namely, Shri Rajesh Trehan and Shri Harish Mohindru. Apparently, such course of action is not tenable. The importer has to be identified and the duty liability could not be fastened without identification of importer. Further, in order to fulfil the requirement of principles of natural justice, all the relied upon documents are to be made available to the noticees. Without rendering any opinion on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the original authority for fresh decision after giving adequate opportunity to the noticees to present their case. Since the consignments are lying with the Department, the authorities may take an early decision.

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.

Miscellaneous Application also stands disposed of accordingly.”

(emphasis supplied)

2. The facts of the case are that the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence³ received intelligence that some importers were purchasing complete LED TVs in the overseas market and then removing some parts such as Master cards, Power Supply units and RF cards and importing such LED TVs at low prices and were importing the remaining goods along with remote control, etc. separately in the name of others. After importing they were assembling them together to make the complete LED TVs and selling them in the market.

3. Acting on this intelligence, they searched the premises of the appellant and found that the appellant had purchased the LED Panels from M/s. Siya Ram Sales Corporation and M/s. ABC

3 DRI International and other parts from M/s. Mahalaxmi Enterprises and was assembling them together to make complete TVs.

4. After completing the investigation, Show Cause Notice dated 26.9.2015⁴ was issued by DRI demanding duty with interest and proposing penalties. The Commissioner decided the proposals in the SCN confirming demand of duty of Rs. 9,76,424/- under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962⁵ along with interest under section 28AA on the Act from Shri Rajesh Trehan and Shri Harish Mohindru. 5. On appeal, this Tribunal by the final order dated 16.6.2017, remanded the matter to the Commissioner to identify who is the importer and decide the matter.

6. The Commissioner has, in the order impugned in this appeal, confirmed the demand of duty with interest against the appellant Shri Rajesh Trehan.

Submissions of the appellant

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that undisputedly, the appellant had not imported either the LED TV panels or the other goods. He purchased the goods from others as indicated in the SCN itself and then assembled them. Duty cannot, therefore, be demanded from him.

8. He submits that the allegation is that the ap