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)

  • Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods Under Customs Act

    Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods Under Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.09.2025

    Supreme Court Clarifies Time Limits for Seizure and Release of Goods 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.

    The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Respondent (Civil Appeal No. ​ 3489 of 2024), addressing the legal implications of non-issuance of show-cause notices under the Customs Act, 1962. This ruling has far-reaching consequences for businesses dealing with seized goods and the procedural obligations of customs authorities. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized a luxury car (Maserati) owned by Respondent, a trader in imported and second-hand luxury cars. ​ The car was detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, and later provisionally released under Section 110A. ​ However, the DRI failed to issue a show-cause notice within the stipulated time frame prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Act. ​

    The respondent approached the Delhi High Court, which ruled in his favor, declaring that the failure to issue a show-cause notice within the prescribed period entitled him to the unconditional release of the seized car. ​ The Union of India challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

    Source: Supreme 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 Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Penalty on Broker in Diamond Trade​ ​ ​  

    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 judgment, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the penalty imposed on Appellant, a broker in the diamond trade, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around allegations of over-invoicing and circular trading of diamonds by certain firms, with the appellant accused of being a link between the parties involved. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant worked as a broker in the diamond trade, earning a small commission of 2 paisa per US dollar. He was accused of being involved in circular trading and over-invoicing of diamonds imported by M/s Chirayu Impex Pvt. ​ Ltd and M/s Amrapali Exim Pvt. ​ Ltd. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against these firms, alleging that they were importing diamonds without paying customs duty and overvaluing the goods to remit excess foreign exchange overseas. ​

    The appellant was issued a Show Cause Notice, and the adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ On appeal, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. ​ 1,50,000. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Reinforces Evidentiary Standards in FERA

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessments​

    Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessments​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    Supreme Court of India Sets Aside Gauhati High Court Judgment on Time-Barred Tax Assessments​ ​

    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 landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has overturned a judgment by the Gauhati High Court concerning the reassessment of time-barred tax cases under the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993. ​ The ruling, delivered on September 11, 2025, in the case of M/S Shiv Steels vs. The State of Assam & Ors. ​, has significant implications for the interpretation of fiscal statutes and the powers of tax authorities. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute revolved around the reassessment of tax liabilities for the years 2003-2004, 2004-2005, and 2005-2006. ​ Initially, the assessments were declared time-barred under Section 19 of the Assam General Sales Tax Act, 1993, which prescribes strict time limits for completing assessments and reassessments. ​ However, the revenue department later obtained the sanction of the Commissioner and invoked Section 21 of the Act to conduct fresh assessments within an extended limitation period. ​

    The appellant, M/S Shiv Steels, challenged the fresh assessments, arguing that they were invalid and beyond the permissible time limits. ​The Gauhati High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, holding that the reassessment was valid under Section 21, as the Commissioner had granted prior sanction.

    Source: Supreme 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 Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked

    CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act cannot be invoked ​ ​

    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), New Delhi, recently delivered its judgment on a series of appeals involving Toyota Material Handling India Private Limited (TMHIPL), its Senior Manager, and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi. The case revolved around the assessment of Countervailing Duty (CVD) on imported forklift parts and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. Here’s a breakdown of the case and its implications.

    The Background

    Toyota Material Handling India, a subsidiary of Toyota Industrial Corporation, Japan, imports and distributes forklifts and their parts in India. ​ Between February 2014 and March 2017, the company imported forklift parts and paid CVD based on the transaction value of the goods. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that CVD should have been assessed on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) basis, as per the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and related rules. ​

    A show cause notice was issued in January 2019, alleging that Toyota India had evaded duty by not declaring the MRP of the imported goods. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed a demand of β‚Ή1.67 crore for the period up to May 13, 2015, but dropped a demand of β‚Ή3.25 crore for the period after May 14, 2015, citing amendments to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Clarifies Requirement of Wilful Intent for Extended Limitation

    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

  • Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​

    Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​ ​ ​ Β 

    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.

    Introduction

    On September 17, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued a significant notification (S.O. ​ 4219(E)) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). ​ This notification outlines specific cases or classes of cases that will be heard exclusively by the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). ​ The decision, made on the recommendations of the GST Council, aims to streamline the appellate process and ensure consistency in judgments on critical legal matters.

    Key Highlights of the Notification

    The notification, issued under the third proviso to sub-section (5) of section 109 of the CGST Act, specifies three categories of cases that will be heard solely by Principal Bench:

    1. Cases Pending Before Multiple State Benches ​ If a case is pending before two or more State Benches and the President of the GSTAT is satisfied that an identical question of law is involved, such cases will be transferred to the Principal Bench. ​ This provision ensures uniformity in legal interpretation across states and avoids conflicting judgments.
    2. Cases Involving Sections 14 or 14A of the IGST Act, 2017 ​ Any case where one or more issues are covered under section 14 or section 14A of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) will be heard by the Principal Bench. ​ These sections deal with the determination of the place of supply and special provisions for goods and services, which are critical for interstate transactions.
    3. Cases Involving Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017 ​ Cases involving issues under section 20 of the CGST Act, which pertains to the application of provisions of the CGST Act to the Union Territories, will also be heard by the Principal Bench. ​ This ensures that matters related to Union Territories are addressed uniformly.

    Source: Ministry of Finance

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable

    CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable ​ ​

    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), Chennai, has delivered a favorable judgment for M/s. Olympic Enterprises and its proprietor’s son, in a long-standing dispute over anti-dumping duty on imported measuring tapes. ​ The appeals, which were inter-related, were heard together and disposed of by a common order on September 17, 2025. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the import of “fibre glass measuring tapes” by M/s. ​ Olympic Enterprises, which were declared as “tailor tapes” in the bills of entry. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer deliberately misdeclared the goods to evade anti-dumping duty applicable to such imports from China under Notification No. ​ 49/2009–Cus. dated May 15, 2009. ​ The department also accused the importer of suppressing facts and violating provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. ​

    Following investigations, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods, imposed anti-dumping duty of Rs. ​ 47,36,512/-, and levied penalties on both the importer and Appellant, ​ The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudicating authority’s order, prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    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 Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty

    CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty​ ​

    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 landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has ruled in favor of M/s Alpex Solar Pvt. Ltd., a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU), exempting them from the imposition of safeguard duty under Section 8B(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ This judgment, delivered on September 16, 2025, sets a significant precedent for EOUs across India.

    Background of the Case

    Alpex Solar Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing and export of solar panels, imported Multi Silicon Solar Cells from Taiwan in 2018. ​ The company filed Bills of Entry at a nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and paid IGST at 5%, availing exemptions under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. However, in March 2019, the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch observed that the company had not paid safeguard duty at 25%, imposed under Notification No. ​ 1/2018-(SG). ​ A show-cause notice was issued, alleging that the goods imported were of Taiwanese origin, which did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. ​ 19/2016-Cus (NT). ​

    The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand for safeguard duty, IGST interest, and penalties, leading Alpex Solar Pvt. ​ Ltd. to challenge the order before CESTAT.

    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 Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods

    CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods​ ​

    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 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, the inclusion of technical assistance fees in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR) was thoroughly examined. ​ The case, involving M/s. ​ Seiren India Pvt. ​ Ltd., sheds light on the nuanced interpretation of customs valuation laws and the distinction between pre-import and post-import activities. This decision is a landmark in clarifying the scope of Rule 10(1)(c) and its application to technical assistance fees.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Seiren India Pvt. ​ Ltd., a subsidiary of Japanese companies, entered into an “Assistance and Service Agreement” with its overseas parent entities for technical, marketing, and other assistance required for setting up a manufacturing facility in Mysore. ​ The company imported raw materials, consumables, and capital goods, including tools and spares, from related and unrelated suppliers. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority added the technical assistance fees paid by the appellant to the value of imported goods, citing Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR, 2007. ​ This decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to approach CESTAT.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Refines the Doctrine of Royalty Inclusion in Import Valuation

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation ​ ​

    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), Chandigarh, has set aside penalties imposed on two appellants, in a case involving allegations of under-valuation and mis-declaration of imported goods by M/s Prince International. ​ The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the importance of evidence-based findings and the proper application of legal provisions in customs cases.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into M/s Prince International, Ludhiana, which was accused of evading customs duty by under-valuing and mis-declaring bicycle parts and pumps imported from China. ​ Following the investigation, penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly aiding and abetting the importer in the evasion of customs duty.

    Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export​ ​ ​  

    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), Allahabad, has set aside penalties imposed on three appellants accused of illegally exporting onions to Nepal under the guise of potatoes. ​ The case, which revolved around alleged violations of a government ban on onion exports, highlights the importance of admissible evidence and procedural safeguards in adjudication processes. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The controversy began with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 29, 2020, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). ​ The SCN alleged that M/s Sai Ram Enterprises, its proprietor Appellants (a Superintendent at the Land Customs Station, Toothibari) were involved in exporting onions to Nepal despite a ban imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) through Notification No. 21/2019-20 dated September 29, 2019. The onions were allegedly exported under the guise of potatoes using falsified shipping bills. ​ The Joint Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the SCN and imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 5,00,000 each on the appellants under Sections 114AA and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ These penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

    Connected Matter

    Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance with Section 9D

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com