$~51 & 76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 7^th April, 2025 + CUSAA 62/2025 M/S MICROSOFT LICENSING GP .....Appellant Through: Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Sr. Ad. with Ms.

Pooja Sharma & Mr. Tarun Kumar Sobti, Advs.

versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Mr.

Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advocates.

76 AND + CUSAA 63/2025 M/S MICROSOFT LICENSING GP ....Appellant Through: Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Sharma and Mr. Tarun Kumar Sobti, Advocates.

versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IMPORT NEW DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Singhal, Mr.

Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 20446/2025 (for exemption) in CUSAA 62/2025 CM APPL. 20592/2025 (for exemption) in CUSAA 63/2025

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are disposed of.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA CUSAA62/2025&CUSAA63/2025 Page1of10 CM APPL. 20445/2025 (for delay) in CUSAA 62/2025 CM APPL. 20591/2025 (for delay) in CUSAA 63/2025

3. These two applications are filed by the Appellant – M/S Microsoft Licensing GP seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals.

4. In view of the unique facts of these cases, delay of 2626 days and 1873 days in filing the appeals being CUSAA 62/2025 and CUSAA 63/2025 respectively, is condoned. Applications are disposed of.

CUSAA 62/2025 & CUSAA 63/2025

5. Thesearetwo appealsfiledby theAppellant - M/sMicrosoftLicensing GP seeking restoration of the two appeals filed by the Customs Department being Customs Appeal No.C/52942/2015 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Customs Appeal No.C/52578/2015 in CUSAA 63/2025 respectively before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, ‘CESTAT’), New Delhi.

6. Both these matters have a long drawn history. Certain Show Cause Notices were issued to various parties in respect of import of software kits from the U.S.A.

7. The noticees to such Show Cause Notices were various Original Equipment Manufacturers (‘OEMs’) and other importers as well. The said Show Cause Notice bearing DRI F. No.23/13/2009-DZU/HCL dated 03rd March, 2011 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Show Cause Notice bearing DRI F.No. 23/13/2009-DZU/WIPRO/7039 dated 03rd March, 2011 in CUSAA 63/2025 were issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, DRI), officials.

8. The said Show Cause Notices were adjudicated by the Adjudicating Signature Not Verified Signed By:NAMITA CUSAA62/2025&CUSAA63/2025 Page2of10 Authority and Order-in-Original dated 24th April, 2015 was passed in Show Cause Notice DRIF.No.23/13/2009-DZU/HCL and Order-in-Originaldated 01st April, 2015 was passed in Show Cause Notice DRI F.No.23/13/2009-

DZU/WIPRO/7039.

9. The Department had challenged the above stated Orders-in-Original before the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, CESTAT) being Customs Appeal No. C/52942/2015 in CUSAA 62/2025 and Customs Appeal No.C/52578/2015 in CUSAA 63/2025 respectively (hereinafter, the subject Appeals).

10. In the meantime, the decision in Mangli Impex Limited vs. Union of India 2016 (335) ELT 605 (Del.) was rendered by this Court, wherein it was held that officers of DRI were not proper officers under the Customs Act, 1962.

11. This legal issue was then pending for adjudication before the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the CESTAT, in Customs Appeal No.C/52942/2015 on 30^th June, 2017 and in Customs Appeal No.C/52578/2015 on 03rd July, 2017, set aside the entire decision in the subject Appeals in view of the decision in Mangli Impex Limited (supra)

12. The matter was then remanded to the Adjudicating Authority by CESTAT vide the above stated orders for deciding the issue of jurisdiction and to adjudicate the same on merits. Similar orders also came to be passed in a large number of othe