$~35 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CUSAA 66/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ACC IMPORTS)

.....Appellant Through: Mr. R. Ramchandran, SSC with Mr.

Prateek Dhir, Advs.

versus NOKIA INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv.

WITH + CUSAA 79/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ACC IMOIRTS)

.....Appellant Through: Mr. R. Ramchandran, SSC with Mr.

Prateek Dhir, Advs.

versus M/S NOKIA INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Adv.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R

% 10.11.2025

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. On the last date of hearing i.e., 7th July, 2025, the Court had directed that the refund be granted to the Respondent Company in terms of the impugned order dated 15th October, 2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Further, on a query from the Court, ld. Counsel for the Respondent Company had stated that he would have no objection if the Court directed voluntary contribution of some amount from the refund to be deposited to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:

“18. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the initial burden has not been discharged by the company. The CESTAT has rightly taken a view which this Court is not inclined to interfere with. The refund is now liable to be granted to the Respondent company.

19. Mr. Sawhney, ld. Counsel for the Respondent, on a query from the Court, submits that he would have no objection if some amount is still directed to the Consumer Welfare Fund as a voluntary contribution by the Respondent company.

20. Accordingly, let a sum of Rs.25 lakhs be contributed by the Respondent company to the Consumer Welfare Fund. A sum of Rs.10 lakhs be also contributed to the Delhi High Court Bar Association.

21. The refund of the principal and the interest as per law, be credited to the Respondent company within a period of two months. The contribution as directed above be made within a month thereafter.”

3. Today, ld. Counsel for the Respondent Company submits that the refund has been received.

4. It is further submitted that the deposit in favour of the Delhi High Court Bar Association has been made. However, the deposit in favour of the Consumer Welfare Fund is yet to be made, since the Respondent Company had received the account details belatedly.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent assures the Court that the same would be made within two weeks.

6. In view of the above, the matter need not be listed further.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

SHAIL JAIN, J.

NOVEMBER 10, 2025/

pt/msh