Legal Review and Analysis of Commissioner of Customs Central Excise & Service Tax Noida vs Ms D S Foods Ltd Civil Appeal No 5234 5236
In-Short
Case: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida vs. M/S D.S. Foods Ltd., Review Petition (C) No. of 2025, Order dated 04.11.2025 (Supreme Court of India).Short Caption: Supreme Court dismisses the Revenue Department's review petition, finding no merit to re-consider its earlier order, thereby providing finality to the dispute in favor of the assessee.
Legal Review and Analysis of Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida vs. M/S D.S. Foods Ltd
1. Heading of the Judgment
Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida vs. M/S D.S. Foods Ltd.
Review Petition (C) No. of 2025 (Diary No. 12844/2025) in Civil Appeal Nos. 5234-5236 of 2009
Supreme Court of India
Order Dated: November 04, 2025
2. Related Laws and Jurisdictional Provisions
This proceeding was initiated under the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India. The specific legal mechanism invoked was a Review Petition under Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to review any of its own judgments or orders. The underlying appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 5234-5236 of 2009) likely pertained to matters of Customs, Central Excise, and Service Tax.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Petitioner: Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Noida (The Revenue Department).
Respondent: M/S D.S. Foods Ltd.
Nature of Proceeding: Review Petition seeking a review of the Supreme Court's earlier order(s) in the mentioned civil appeals.
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice (CJI), Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Procedure: The matter was decided by circulation, meaning it was considered by the judges on paper without an oral hearing.
Interlocutory Applications: The petitioner had filed applications for:
Condonation of Delay in Filing the Review Petition (IA No. 62620/2025).
Exemption from filing a certified copy of the impugned judgment (IA No. 62618/2025).
Permission to file additional documents/facts/annexures (IA No. 62476/2025).
4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment
The Core Issue: The Maintainability and Merit of the Review Petition
The central issue before the Supreme Court was not the original dispute between the Commissioner and D.S. Foods Ltd., but whether the Court should exercise its extraordinary review jurisdiction to re-consider and potentially alter its own final order(s) passed in the civil appeals.
Analysis of the Court's Adjudication
Condonation of Delay: The Court's order begins with "Delay condoned." This indicates that the petitioner filed the review petition after the statutory period allowed for such filings had expired. By condoning the delay, the Court formally accepted the petition for consideration on merit, despite its belated filing. This step was necessary to proceed to the substantive issue.
Dismissal of the Review Petition: The core of the order lies in the sentence: "In our opinion, no case for review of order is made out. The review petitions are dismissed." This succinct ruling carries significant legal weight and implies a multi-layered analysis:
Stringent Threshold for Review: The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power of review under Article 137 is not an appellate jurisdiction. It is not meant for re-hearing the case on merits. A review is granted only on very narrow and specific grounds, such as the discovery of new and important evidence, an apparent error on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason of a similar nature. The Court's opinion that "no case for review is made out" signifies that the petitioner failed to establish any of these stringent grounds.
Rejection of Petitioner's Grounds: The petitioner, the Commissioner, had sought to present "additional documents/facts/annexures." The Court's dismissal suggests that this new material was either not admissible at the review stage, not significant enough to change the outcome, or did not reveal any patent error in the original judgment. The Court was not persuaded that a re-look at its earlier decision was warranted.
Finality of Litigation: The dismissal reinforces the principle of finality of judgments pronounced by the Supreme Court. It signifies that the earlier decision in the civil appeals, which was likely in favor of the respondent M/S D.S. Foods Ltd., stands final and binding. The government's attempt to re-agitate the matter has been conclusively shut down.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The delay in filing the review petition was condoned.
The Review Petitions were dismissed on merits, as the Court found no valid grounds to review its earlier order.
All pending Interlocutory Applications (IAs) were disposed of as a consequence.
The Supreme Court's direction is clear: its earlier order in Civil Appeal Nos. 5234-5236 of 2009 remains unaltered and in full force.
6. (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
1. In the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. M/S D.S. Foods Ltd., what was the primary legal ground for the Supreme Court's dismissal of the petition?
(a) The petition was filed in a court that lacked the necessary jurisdiction.
(b) The petitioner failed to appear for the oral hearing on the scheduled date.
(c) The Court found that no valid grounds for reviewing its earlier order were established.
(d) The respondent company, M/S D.S. Foods Ltd., had been dissolved.
2. The Supreme Court's power to review its own judgments, as exercised in this case, is derived from which provision of the Indian Constitution?
(a) Article 32
(b) Article 131
(c) Article 137
(d) Article 142
Blog Posts
