ALS

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Author: Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)

  • CESTAT Delhi- Refund of SAD Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of SAD Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of SAD Cannot Be Denied on Limitation Grounds

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.​​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has delivered a judgment that brings clarity to the contentious issue of the time limit for claiming refunds of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus. This decision, pronounced on October 9, 2025, in the case of M/s Arjun Enterprises Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, is a landmark for importers seeking refunds of SAD.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s Arjun Enterprises Pvt. ​ Ltd., had filed a refund claim of Rs. ​ 1,91,363/- on July 26, 2018, for the SAD paid on imported goods under a Bill of Entry dated July 2, 2016. However, the claim was rejected by the adjudicating authority on the grounds of limitation, as the refund was filed beyond one year from the date of payment of the duty. ​ This rejection was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal. ​ The crux of the dispute revolved around whether the one-year limitation period for filing a refund claim should be calculated from the date of payment of SAD or from the date of sale of the imported goods.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 112(a) of Customs Act

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 112(a) of Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 10.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Penalty on CHA Under Section 112(a) of Customs Act

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant legal development, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a favorable judgment for Kwick Cargo Tracers & Lifters, a Customs House Agent (CHA), in Customs Appeal No. ​ 85445 of 2017. ​ The appeal challenged the penalty of β‚Ή1 lakh imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, by the Commissioner of Customs, NS-III, JNCH, Nhava Sheva, through an Order-in-Original dated 6.1.2017. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the import of “Melamine ware viz. ​ Kitchenware and Tableware” by M/s. ​ Sirthai Superware India Ltd., the main noticee in the proceedings. ​ The Commissioner of Customs had imposed penalties on both the importer and the appellant-CHA, citing erroneous classification of goods and differential customs duty demands. However, the importer had previously challenged the same order before the Tribunal in Customs Appeal No. ​ 85603 of 2019. ​ In its final order dated 10.10.2019, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the importer, holding that the goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Statement Under Section 108 Not Admissible Without Compliance of Section 138B of Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi- Statement Under Section 108 Not Admissible Without Compliance of Section 138B of Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Statement Under Section 108 Not Admissible Without Compliance of Section 138B of Customs Act

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of A R Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner, Customs (Preventive). ​This decision, issued on October 1, 2025, sheds light on the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the procedural safeguards required under Section 138B of the Act. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case and its implications.

    Background of the Case

    The appeal arose from an order dated May 28, 2021, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which upheld an earlier order by the Joint Commissioner of Customs. The dispute revolved around the reassessment of the value of imported “polyester knitted fabric mixed” declared in two Bills of Entry dated October 3, 2019. ​ The Joint Commissioner had rejected the declared value under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and reassessed it under Rule 5 based on contemporary import data. ​ This reassessment led to the recovery of differential customs duty, penalties, and confiscation of goods with an option to pay a redemption fine. ​

    The Commissioner (Appeals) relied solely on the appellant’s statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, where the appellant had admitted to undervaluation and waived their right to a show cause notice and personal hearing.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Extended Timeline for enforcement of BIS for MSME Domestics Manufacturer will also apply on Imports by MSME says Madras High Court

    Extended Timeline for enforcement of BIS for MSME Domestics Manufacturer will also apply on Imports by MSME says Madras High Court

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.10.2025

    Extended Timeline for enforcement of BIS for MSME Domestics Manufacturer will also apply on Imports by MSME says Madras High Court

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Madras High Court, in a significant ruling on September 25, 2025, disposed of a writ petition filed by M/s. ​ Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. P. Ltd, directing the Customs Department to assess and clear imported goods without insisting on a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) Registration Certificate. The judgment, delivered by Honourable Justice, brought clarity to the applicability of the Plywood and Wooden Flush Door Shutters (Quality Control) Order, 2024, particularly concerning imports by Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs).

    Background of the Case

    The petitioner, M/s. Alankar Shipping and Trading Co. P. Ltd, represented by its Managing Director, had imported 3,456 sheets of packing plywood from Vietnam, valued at USD 24,896.96. ​ The goods arrived at Chennai on August 13, 2025, under a bill of lading dated July 29, 2025. ​ The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Customs Department to assess and clear the goods covered under Bill of Entry No. ​ 3836297 dated August 12, 2025, without requiring a BIS Registration Certificate. ​

    The petitioner argued that the Quality Control Order (QCO), which mandates the use of standard marks, came into force on February 28, 2025, but its provisions were postponed until August 28, 2025. ​ As a recognized Micro Enterprise under the MSME classification, the petitioner claimed exemption from the BIS requirement until the postponed date. ​ However, the Customs Department refused to grant this exemption, citing a communication from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated March 19, 2025, which stated that the additional time period for compliance granted to MSMEs does not apply to imports.

    Source: Madras High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Duty Recovery in Naphthalene Import Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Duty Recovery in Naphthalene Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Duty Recovery in Naphthalene Import Dispute

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a judgment that underscores the importance of adhering to legal principles in customs enforcement. The case involved appeals filed by M/s LRC Speciality Chemicals Pvt Ltd, M/s Silicon Carbide Grinding Mills Pvt Ltd, and Appellant, challenging the confiscation of imported naphthalene and the subsequent recovery of duties foregone. ​ The tribunal’s decision, pronounced on October 1, 2025, has set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants had imported naphthalene under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) scheme of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) for manufacturing and exporting specific products. ​ However, customs authorities alleged that portions of the imported goods were diverted for domestic use and transferred between the appellants, violating the conditions of the exemption notification issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This led to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of fines and recovery of duties under Section 125 of the Act. ​

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Strikes Down Interest, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on IGST for Pre-Import Condition Violations

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Strikes Down Interest, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on IGST for Pre-Import Condition Violations

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.10.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Strikes Down Interest, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on IGST for Pre-Import Condition Violations

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. This decision, pronounced on July 23, 2024, has far-reaching implications for importers operating under the Advance Authorization Scheme and sheds light on the legal framework surrounding the levy of interest, penalties, and redemption fines under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the alleged violation of the “pre-import condition” by Chiripal Poly Films Ltd. during imports made under the Advance Authorization Scheme between October 13, 2017, and January 9, 2019. ​ The company had availed exemptions from Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) under Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus, as amended by Notification No. ​ 79/2017-Cus. However, the “pre-import condition” was later challenged in courts, leading to a protracted legal battle. ​

    The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 28, 2023, upheld the validity of the “pre-import condition” but allowed importers to pay IGST retrospectively and claim input tax credit (ITC) or refunds. ​ Following this, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) issued Circular No. ​ 16/2023-Cus, directing importers to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.10.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Procedural Lapse in Filing Returns Does Not Warrant Penalty Under Customs Act

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited for alleged procedural lapses in filing quarterly returns under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. This decision, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the distinction between procedural non-compliance and deliberate contravention of legal provisions, offering valuable insights for importers and businesses availing exemption benefits under customs law.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Paramount Surgimed Limited, an importer availing exemption under Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Cus., was penalized for late filing of quarterly returns for multiple quarters between July 2017 and March 2019. The penalties, totaling Rs. 1,75,000, were imposed under Section 158 of the Customs Act, 1962, for contravention of Rule 6(3) of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017. The appellant challenged the penalties, arguing that the alleged non-compliance was purely procedural and lacked any intent to evade revenue or commit fraud.

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Broker License Revocation Due to Procedural Delays

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Broker License Revocation Due to Procedural Delays

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Customs Broker License Revocation Due to Procedural Delays

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the revocation of the customs broker license of M/s M D Ruparel & Sons. The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural timelines under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR, 2018) and underscores the balance between regulatory compliance and fairness in administrative proceedings. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s M D Ruparel & Sons, a licensed customs broker, faced allegations of misconduct under Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018. ​ The charges stemmed from their alleged involvement in forging “factory stuffing permissions” to facilitate ineligible drawback claims amounting to β‚Ή49.56 crore. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, revoked their license, forfeited their security deposit, and imposed a penalty of β‚Ή50,000. ​ However, the customs broker appealed the decision, citing procedural lapses and delays in the inquiry process.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered a favorable judgment for the National Sports Club of India (NSCI) in the Customs Appeal No. 88657 of 2014. ​ The case revolved around the importation of SVPS Chillers and the applicability of customs exemptions under Notification No. ​ 21/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. ​

    Background of the Case

    The NSCI had filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of SVPS Chillers, classifying the goods under CTH 84198940 and claiming the benefit of the aforementioned notification. ​ However, upon verification, customs authorities determined that the exemption was not applicable, as it was limited to packaged commodities meant for retail sale under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. ​ Consequently, the goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 10,00,000 and a penalty of Rs. ​ 5,00,000 imposed under Section 112(a). ​ The NSCI appealed the decision, but the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and further invoked Section 111(o) for the first time, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Quashes DRI-Issued Show Cause Notice

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes DRI-Issued Show Cause Notice

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.10.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes DRI-Issued Show Cause Notice

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Regional Bench, has set aside an order demanding differential duty from M/s Beriwala Impex Pvt. Ltd. The case revolved around the authority of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers to issue Show Cause Notices (SCNs) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision reaffirms the legal principles established by the Supreme Court in the Canon India case and sheds light on the scope of powers exercised by DRI officers under the Customs Act. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s Beriwala Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd. imported LDPE re-processed granules through various ports, including Kolkata, Chennai, and ICD Tughlakabad. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged undervaluation of the imported goods, leading to a short levy of customs duty. ​ Following an investigation, the DRI issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) demanding differential duty of Rs. ​ 96,42,062, along with interest, confiscation of goods, and penalties. ​

    The appellant challenged the SCN, arguing that DRI officers were not “proper officers” under Section 28 of the Customs Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com