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)

  • CAAR Mumbai Decides Classification Dispute on Imported Vacuum Circuit Breaker Parts

    CAAR Mumbai Decides Classification Dispute on Imported Vacuum Circuit Breaker Parts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.09.2025

    CAAR Mumbai Decides Classification Dispute on Imported Vacuum Circuit Breaker Parts​ ​ ​ ​ ​

     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 development for the electrical and automation industry, the Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, has delivered a favorable ruling for M/s. Siemens Limited regarding the classification of parts for Vacuum Circuit Breakers (VCBs). This ruling, issued on September 3, 2025, provides clarity on the classification of these critical components under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

    The Context: What Are Vacuum Circuit Breakers?

    Vacuum Circuit Breakers (VCBs) are essential devices used in medium and high-voltage applications (1kV to 35kV) to protect electrical systems. ​ They operate by interrupting the flow of current during faults like short circuits or overloads. ​ The arc quenching process in VCBs occurs in a vacuum, making them highly efficient and reliable for power distribution systems. ​

    Siemens Limited, a leader in electrification, automation, and digitalization, imports various precision-engineered parts for VCBs. ​ These parts, made from oxygen-free copper, are designed to withstand high voltages, temperatures, and arcing conditions. ​ To ensure compliance with customs regulations, Siemens sought an advance ruling on the classification of these parts.

    Source: CAAR 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 Hyderabad Sets Aside Confiscation of Imported Stainless Steel Scrap

    CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Confiscation of Imported Stainless Steel Scrap

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.09.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Confiscation of Imported Stainless Steel Scrap​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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), Hyderabad, has delivered justice to Jindal Stainless Ltd by setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. ​ This case highlights the importance of interpreting laws and policies in a practical and fair manner, especially when procedural challenges arise.

    Background of the Case

    Jindal Stainless Ltd, a leading steel manufacturer, imported 500.74 MT of stainless steel scrap of 304 grade from Turkey under two Bills of Entry dated December 3, 2014, and December 8, 2014. As per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures, metallic waste and scrap in unshredded, compressed, and loose form can only be imported if accompanied by a pre-shipment inspection certificate issued by an authorized agency. ​ However, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had not notified any agency in Turkey for such inspections. ​ Faced with this practical challenge, Jindal Stainless Ltd obtained the certificate from M/s Worldwide Inspection Services – SARL, Benin, an agency authorized by DGFT but not specifically for Turkey. ​

    Upon arrival at Visakhapatnam port, the imported scrap was examined by M/s Valueguru Chartered Engineers, Surveyors, Valuers, who issued a post-shipment inspection certificate confirming the goods were in order. ​ Despite this, the Principal Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 40,00,000, and levied a penalty of Rs. ​ 10,00,000 under Section 112(a).

    Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

    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 Sets Aside Penalties on Customs Broker in Misclassification

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Customs Broker in Misclassification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Customs Broker in Misclassification​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s PS Bedi & Co (P) Ltd., a Customs Broker, under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision, delivered on August 5, 2025, highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the role of Customs Brokers in import transactions. The case revolved around alleged misclassification of imported goods, leading to penalties imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s PS Bedi & Co (P) Ltd., was penalized for filing Bills of Entry for AMR/Non-AMR Water Flow Meters imported by M/s SPML India Ltd. from Israel. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the goods were misclassified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9026 10 10 instead of CTI 9028 20 00, resulting in revenue loss. Despite having Certificates of Origin indicating CTI 9028, the Customs Broker filed the Bills of Entry based on the import documents provided by the importer. ​

    A show cause notice was issued, accusing the Customs Broker of deliberate misclassification and suppression of material facts, making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. ​ Penalties were imposed under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

    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 Chennai Rules in Favor of M/s Zibal Exim: Classification and Valuation of Imported Black Sand Upheld

    CESTAT Chennai Rules in Favor of M/s Zibal Exim: Classification and Valuation of Imported Black Sand Upheld

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rules in Favor of M/s Zibal Exim: Classification and Valuation of Imported Black Sand Upheld​ ​ ​ ​

    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:

    This case pertains to Customs Appeal No. 42037 of 2015 filed by M/s Zibal Exim against the Order-in-Appeal No. 118/2014-TTN(CUS) dated 14.10.2014, which upheld the Order-in-Original No. 40/2013 dated 07.11.2013. The dispute arose over the classification, valuation, and eligibility for concessional duty of 106 tons of “Black Sand” imported by the appellant from Sierra Leone.

    The Customs Department classified the goods as Quartz Sand under CTH 2505 1020, denied the concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012, enhanced the value of the goods, and imposed fines and penalties. The appellant contested these findings, asserting that the goods were Rutile-bearing sand and should be classified under CTH 2614 0090 as Titanium Ore.

    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 Bangalore- ATM Monitors Classifiable as Parts Under CTH 8473

    CESTAT Bangalore- ATM Monitors Classifiable as Parts Under CTH 8473

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- ATM Monitors Classifiable as Parts Under CTH 8473​ ​

    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 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, the appeal filed by M/s NCR Corporation India Pvt. ​ Ltd. was allowed, setting aside the earlier classification of ATM monitors under CTH 8528. ​ This ruling reaffirms the importance of accurate classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, ensuring compliance with established legal precedents. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when NCR Corporation imported monitors intended for use in Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs) and declared them as LCD assemblies for ATMs under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8473, which covers parts and accessories of machines classified under CTH 8472. ​ However, the revenue authorities argued that these monitors should be classified under CTH 8528, which pertains to monitors and projectors not incorporating television reception apparatus. ​

    Aggrieved by the revenue’s decision, NCR Corporation filed an appeal before the CESTAT, citing legal precedents and technical grounds to support their claim.

    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 Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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), Chennai, has ruled in favor of M/s. Float Glass Centre, a regular importer of Clear Float Glass (CFG), in a case concerning the classification of imported goods and the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 2, 2025, sets a significant precedent for importers navigating complex classification disputes and exemption claims.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Float Glass Centre, based in Chennai, imports Clear Float Glass with an absorbent layer, which they classify under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7005 1090. ​ This classification entitles them to a β€˜NIL’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Sl. ​ No. 934 of Notification No. ​ 46/2011-Cus, provided the goods are imported from ASEAN countries. ​ However, the Assessing Officer denied this classification, citing discrepancies in the Country-of-Origin certificate, which mentioned a different CTH (7005 2990). ​ Consequently, the appellant filed bills of entry under protest and challenged the denial of exemption benefits before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who rejected their claims. This led to the present appeals before 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 Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable

    CESTAT Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable​ ​

    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), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the demand for differential duty, redemption fine, and penalty against M/s. ​ Thales India Private Limited. ​ The case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the implications of procedural lapses in customs adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when Thales India imported “Digital Axle Counter,” a safety and traffic control equipment for railways, under Customs Tariff Entry No. ​ 8608 0030, attracting IGST at 5%. ​ However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) later contended that the correct classification was under Customs Tariff Entry No. ​ 8530 1010, which attracts IGST at 28%. ​ This reclassification led to a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. ​ 84,75,878/-, along with a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 85,00,000/- and a penalty equivalent to the duty payable. ​

    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- Procedural Errors in Shipping Bills Cannot Defeat Export Incentives

    Supreme Court- Procedural Errors in Shipping Bills Cannot Defeat Export Incentives

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.09.2025

    Supreme Court- Procedural Errors in Shipping Bills Cannot Defeat Export Incentives​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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 delivered on August 19, 2025, the Supreme Court of India has provided much-needed clarity on the rights of exporters under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS). The case, M/S Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. ​ Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. ​, highlights the importance of balancing procedural compliance with substantive entitlements under beneficial export schemes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/S Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. ​ Ltd., a private company engaged in the export of corn starch, faced a procedural hurdle that jeopardized its claim for MEIS benefits. Between July and October 2017, the company filed 54 shipping bills electronically through its customs broker. ​ However, due to an inadvertent clerical error, the declaration of intent to claim MEIS benefits was marked as β€œNo” instead of β€œYes.” This error prevented the shipping bills from being transmitted to the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), thereby blocking the processing of the MEIS claim. ​

    Despite the correction of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, the DGFT refused to process the claim, citing systemic constraints. ​ The Policy Relaxation Committee (PRC) also rejected the claim without assigning reasons or granting the appellant an opportunity to be heard. ​ Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Bombay High Court, which dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to pursue remedies against the customs broker.

    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 Mumbai- JNPT was not liable to pay service tax on royalty charges collected under BOT agreements

    CESTAT Mumbai- JNPT was not liable to pay service tax on royalty charges collected under BOT agreements

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- JNPT was not liable to pay service tax on royalty charges collected under BOT agreements​

     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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) in a long-standing dispute over the applicability of service tax on royalty charges collected under Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreements. This decision, delivered on August 14, 2025, sets a precedent for similar cases in the port sector and reinforces the legal position that royalty charges under such agreements do not constitute taxable services.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), had entered into BOT agreements with private entities such as Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for the development and operation of container and liquid cargo terminals. ​ Under these agreements, the private operators paid royalty charges to JNPT based on metrics like TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) or Metric Tonne of cargo handled. The jurisdictional service tax authorities contended that these royalty charges fell under the category of “Port Services” and were subject to service tax. ​ Consequently, 16 show-cause notices were issued for the period between July 2001 and March 2010, demanding service tax and penalties.

    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 rejects the Revenue’s appeal and upholds the release of detained goods​

    CESTAT Kolkata rejects the Revenue’s appeal and upholds the release of detained goods​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata rejects the Revenue’s appeal and upholds the release of detained 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, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to release detained goods on payment of applicable duty. ​ This case, involving M/s. Amit Fashions and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), highlights critical aspects of customs law, including the distinction between detention and seizure, provisional release, and the adjudication process for mis-declared goods.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Amit Fashions, an importer of knitted fabric, filed a self-assessed bill of entry for a consignment of 100% polyester knitted fabric imported from China. ​ Upon examination, the goods were found to be woven fabric instead of knitted fabric, leading to allegations of mis-declaration. ​ The goods were detained, and subsequent investigations resulted in a provisional release order requiring a bond and bank guarantee. ​ Dissatisfied with the conditions imposed, the importer appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who modified the order and allowed the release of goods on payment of applicable duty.

    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