IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 09 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AIRPORT AND AIR CARGO COMMISSIONERATE, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560300.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI ARAVIND V CHAVAN, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL)

AND:

1. M/S FESTO CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED, No.237,B, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BANGALORE-560099.

REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI B. G. CHIDANANDA URS, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU THIS CSTA / CUSTOMS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER Location: H IGH SECTION 130 OF THE CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 ARISING OUT OF COURT OF ORDER DATED 19/03/2024 PASSED IN FINAL ORDER No.

KARNATAKA

20159-20165/2024 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CESTAT, BANGALORE IN FINAL ORDER No.20159-20165/2024 DATED 19.03.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER-IN- ORIGINALS DATED 18.11.2009, 19.02.2010, 31.01.2011, 06.01.2012, 01.03.2012, 08.03.2012, 22.03.2012 AND 24.04.2012 ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (REFUNDS) OF CUSTOMS AND ORDER-IN- APPEALS DATED 11.03.2011, 14.10.2011, 30.05.2012 AND 19.07.2012 ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS).

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

Heard Sri. Aravind V. Chavan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, assailing the Final Order Nos.20159- 20165/2024 dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short 'CESTAT').

3. This Court by order dated 06.08.2025 admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the fact, that the CA Certificate submitted by the assessee fails to prove that the burden of duty has not been passed on to any other person as rightly brought out in the Order-

In-Original's and Order-In-Appeals?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in Interpretation of law, since it has not taken into consideration the claimant's own submission and inability to provide ledger abstracts/balance sheet to substantiate accounting of the claimed amount?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT has erred in not appreciating the law, that in the facts of the present case there has been significant procedural irregularities, by undermining the importance of para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007 dated 14.09.2007."

Brief facts:

4. The respondent-assessee is engaged in the import of goods and sales thereof. The goods imported were cleared by paying 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD). On the sale of imported goods, the respondent applied for a refund of 4% SAD paid. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund request, stating that the respondent failed to produce the evidence to prove that the burden of duty was not passed on to the customers as required under Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act'). Further, held that the conditions under Circular No.06/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008 and Circular No.16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008 are not fulfilled. Further, held that the conditions of Para 2(b) of Notification No.102/2007-Cus, dated 14.09.2007, are not satisfied. On different dates, the refund applications came to be rejected.

5. The respondent-assessee preferred appeals before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appeals were rejected on different dates. The assessee, further aggrieved, preferred appeals before the CESTAT.

6. The CESTAT under the impugned order dated

19.03.