M/S SOLARCRAFT CLEANTECH PVT LTD vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISHAKHAPATNAM — C.A. No. 3519/2026

Case under Indirect Taxation : Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, Export, Import and Anti-dumping Duty Section XVII-A. Status: Pending.

Pending

CNR: SCIN010077212026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

C.A. No. 3519/2026

Diary Number

7721/2026

Order Date

21-May-2026

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indirect Taxation : Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, Export, Import and Anti-Dumping duty Section XVII-A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S SOLARCRAFT CLEANTECH PVT LTD

    Adv. CHARANYA LAKSHMIKUMARAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, VISHAKHAPATNAM

    Adv. GURMEET SINGH MAKKER[R-1] GURMEET SINGH MAKKER[R-1]

Case History

  1. 21-May-2026

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.V.N. Bhatti

  2. 20-May-2026

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

  3. 19-Mar-2026

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

  4. 18-Mar-2026

    Fresh

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale

  5. 16-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 3519/2026

  7. 02-Mar-2017

    ROPView PDF

  8. 02-Mar-2017

    Office ReportView PDF

  9. 02-Mar-2017

    ROPView PDF

  10. 01-Feb-2017

    ROPView PDF

  11. 01-Feb-2017

    Office ReportView PDF

  12. 01-Feb-2017

    ROPView PDF

  13. 22-Apr-2016

    ROPView PDF

  14. 22-Apr-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  15. 22-Apr-2016

    ROPView PDF

  16. 08-Feb-2016

    ROPView PDF

  17. 08-Feb-2016

    ROPView PDF

  18. 08-Feb-2016

    Office ReportView PDF

  19. 08-Feb-2016

    ROPView PDF

  20. 08-Feb-2016

    ROPView PDF

  21. 20-Nov-2015

    ROPView PDF

  22. 20-Nov-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  23. 20-Nov-2015

    ROPView PDF

  24. 26-Oct-2015

    ROPView PDF

  25. 26-Oct-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  26. 26-Oct-2015

    ROPView PDF

  27. 08-Sep-2015

    ROPView PDF

  28. 08-Sep-2015

    ROPView PDF

  29. 02-Sep-2015

    ROPView PDF

  30. 02-Sep-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  31. 02-Sep-2015

    ROPView PDF

  32. 09-Jul-2015

    ROPView PDF

  33. 09-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  34. 09-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  35. 09-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  36. 09-Jul-2015

    Office ReportView PDF

  37. 09-Jul-2015

    ROPView PDF

  38. 15-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  39. 15-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  40. 12-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  41. 12-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  42. 12-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  43. 12-Dec-2014

    ROPView PDF

  44. 11-Jul-2014

    ROPView PDF

  45. 26-Aug-2013

    ROPView PDF

  46. 16-Aug-2013

    ROPView PDF

  47. 03-May-2013

    ROPView PDF

  48. 19-Nov-2012

    ROPView PDF

  49. 08-Aug-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  50. 18-Feb-2011

    ROPView PDF

Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters

Lead case: C.A. No. 9667 - 9669/2010

PDF 1PDF 2PDF 3PDF 4PDF 5PDF 6PDF 7PDF 8PDF 9PDF 10PDF 11PDF 12PDF 13PDF 14
View Full Judgment
casestatus.in Summary

I have reviewed the Supreme Court hearing records provided. This appears to be a collection of case proceedings spanning from 2010 to 2026, primarily involving customs, excise, and service tax appeals. However, there are several issues that prevent me from providing a complete and accurate summary: 1. Multiple hearings/cases: The document contains numerous separate hearing records for different civil appeals (CAs) with different case names and dates, making it impossible to summarize as a single case proceeding. 2. Fragmented information: The records jump between different cases, years, and courts without a clear chronological narrative. 3. Unclear primary case: There's no single "main" case clearly identified - instead, there are dozens of related but distinct appeals that are being tagged together. Given the rules provided and the nature of this document, I believe the most appropriate response is: SKIP The text is not completely garbled or unreadable, but it is a complex collection of multiple case records spanning 16 years rather than a single coherent hearing narrative that can be summarized in 2-3 sentences. To provide an accurate summary, I would need clarification on which specific case hearing(s) should be summarized. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts District Courts
Search Another Case