ALS

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

Category: ACTS

  • CESTAT Chennai Rules Production Norms Can’t Justify Excise Demand Without Proof

    CESTAT Chennai Rules Production Norms Can’t Justify Excise Demand Without Proof

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rules Production Norms Can’t Justify Excise Demand Without Proof

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has delivered a major relief to M/s Adsorbent Carbons Pvt. Ltd., Tuticorin, by dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and allowing the assessee’s cross appeals. The Tribunal found no basis for the allegations of clandestine removal of Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) and held that duty demands based on unverified production norms were unsustainable.

    Case Background

    • The appellant manufactures Granulated Activated Carbon from coconut shells.
    • The case arose from a series of show cause notices (SCNs) alleging that the assessee failed to maintain proper production records, particularly absorption capacity data, as required under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
    • The department alleged clandestine removal, based on assumptions from norms laid down by the Coconut Development Board.
    • Original demands of over β‚Ή32 lakh in Central Excise Duty along with interest and penalty were confirmed in 2016.
    • Later, fresh demands were raised for subsequent periods.

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

    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

  • Madras HC Affirms DGFT’s Authority on Capital Goods Classification Under EPCG

    Madras HC Affirms DGFT’s Authority on Capital Goods Classification Under EPCG

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.07.2025

    Madras HC Affirms DGFT’s Authority on Capital Goods Classification Under EPCG

    The Madras High Court reaffirmed that the Customs Department cannot override the classification of capital goods as determined by the DGFT under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The Court held that the customs authorities are bound by the EPCG licence issued by the DGFT unless it has been withdrawn or proved fraudulent.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd., imported lighting equipment and fittings in 1999 under an EPCG licence issued by the DGFT, which categorically classified the goods as capital goods. Despite this, the customs authorities denied concessional duty benefit, claiming the goods did not qualify as capital goods under Notification No. 28/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997.

    The case underwent prolonged litigation for over two decades, involving:

    • Denial of concessional duty in 1999.
    • Multiple rounds of appeals before the CESTAT.
    • Remand by the CESTAT following CBEC Circular No. 62/2002, which favoured importers like hotels using goods for rendering services.
    • Refund finally granted in 2018, but interest on delayed refund remained disputed.

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

    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 Chennai Remands Classification Dispute on Flavour Compounds for Fresh Adjudication

    CESTAT Chennai Remands Classification Dispute on Flavour Compounds for Fresh Adjudication

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Remands Classification Dispute on Flavour Compounds for Fresh Adjudication

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai remanded a long-standing classification dispute concerning the import of Mixtures of Odoriferous Substances (MOS) used in flavour manufacturing back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The case involved M/s. Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd. and its former director.

    Case Summary

    • Appellants: M/s. Givaudan India Pvt. Ltd. and its Director
    • Department Allegation: Misclassification of 26 imported MOS compounds
    • Original Classification: Subheadings under CTH 1302, 2906, and 3302.90.90
    • Department Proposal: Reclassification under CTH 3302.10 (Compound alcoholic preparations used for manufacture of beverages)
    • Issue: Whether the imported flavour compounds were of a kind used in the manufacture of beverages

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the products contained ingredients such as ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, and propylene glycol, and were hence compound alcoholic preparations. The department also initiated proceedings for denial of exemption, confiscation, and imposition of penalties under Sections 111(m), 114A, and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

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

    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- Customs Cannot Reclassify Goods Beyond Show Cause Notice

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs Cannot Reclassify Goods Beyond Show Cause Notice

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs Cannot Reclassify Goods Beyond Show Cause Notice

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, has held that customs authorities cannot travel beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) when classifying imported goods. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand of Countervailing Duty (CVD) amounting to β‚Ή27.74 lakh.

    Case Background

    • Importer: M/s. Dharampal Satyapal Ltd., Greater Noida
    • Goods: Three machines – Crumbler DFZL-1500, Plansifter MPAK-228, and Discharge Airlock MPSJ-22/22
    • Purpose: Used in processing Areca Nuts (supari) for manufacturing pan masala
    • Declared Classification: CTH 84371000 (Machines for cleaning, sorting, or grading seeds or dried vegetables)
    • Department’s Claim: Reclassification under CTH 84798200 (general-use crushing/sorting machines) attracting 12.5% CVD
    • Two show cause notices were issued: Dated 08.02.2016 and 07.09.2016 β€” both alleging incorrect classification and short payment of duty

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

    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 Quashes β‚Ή10 Lakh Penalty on Freight Forwarding Executive

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή10 Lakh Penalty on Freight Forwarding Executive

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή10 Lakh Penalty on Freight Forwarding Executive

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has set aside a penalty of β‚Ή10 lakhs imposed on Appellant, Assistant Manager-Sales at Al-Barrak Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd., in a red sanders smuggling case. The Tribunal ruled that there was no evidence of abetment or knowledge on the part of the appellant in the attempted illegal export of red sanders, a prohibited item.

    Background of the Case

    • A consignment falsely declared as β€œRagi” was intercepted by the DRI at Chennai Port.
    • Upon inspection, red sander logsβ€”a prohibited export itemβ€”were discovered instead.
    • The shipping bill was filed by a CHA on behalf of M/s A.I Enterprises, and Shri Elango had facilitated documentation and logistics.
    • The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of β‚Ή10,00,000 on Appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging abetment of smuggling.

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

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    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 Chandigarh Dismisses Customs Appeals in Metal Scrap Valuation

    CESTAT Chandigarh Dismisses Customs Appeals in Metal Scrap Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.07.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Dismisses Customs Appeals in Metal Scrap Valuation

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh, via Final Order Nos. 60650–60742/2025 dated 30.06.2025, dismissed 93 appeals filed by the Revenue against M/s Vardhman Sales Agency and reaffirmed the principles of natural justice and lawful valuation under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    • M/s Vardhman Sales Agency, an importer based in Faridabad, imported metal scrap through 93 Bills of Entry at ICD Piyala.
    • The declared transaction value was β‚Ή35.56 crore with self-assessed customs duty of β‚Ή7.70 crore.
    • Customs authorities enhanced the assessable value unilaterally based on NIDB (National Import Database) data, raising the duty to β‚Ή9.38 crore.
    • Although the importer initially paid the enhanced duty under protest to avoid demurrage, they challenged the re-assessment before the Commissioner (Appeals).

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

    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

  • CAAR Mumbai Clarifies Customs Classification of Wireless Communication Modules

    CAAR Mumbai Clarifies Customs Classification of Wireless Communication Modules

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.07.2025

    CAAR Mumbai Clarifies Customs Classification of Wireless Communication Modules

    The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR), Mumbai, has issued a detailed ruling in favour of ONYX Components & Systems Pvt. Ltd., clarifying the classification of various communication modules under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The modules in question include GSM/GPRS (2G), LTE (4G), NR (5G), NB-IoT, and GPS modules. These are now to be classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8517 79 90 as “Parts of other apparatus for transmission or reception of voice, images or other data.”

    Background of the Case

    ONYX Components approached CAAR to seek an advance ruling under Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962, for classification of cellular and GPS modules imported primarily through the Hyderabad Air Cargo Complex. The company imports these multi-component integrated circuits, which are used by OEMs in a wide range of IoT devices, modems, vehicle tracking systems, and similar wireless network-connected equipment.

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

    Source: CAAR 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 of Steel Scrap for Want of PSIC

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation of Steel Scrap for Want of PSIC

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Confiscation of Steel Scrap for Want of PSIC

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai set aside the confiscation order against M/s White Rock Industries LLP for importing Light Melting Steel Scrap without a valid Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate (PSIC). The Tribunal directed that the consignment be inspected by an expert agency to determine its suitability for home consumption.

    Background of the Case

    M/s White Rock Industries imported a consignment of Light Melting Steel Scrap through Nhava Sheva Port, which was seized by Customs on the ground of non-submission of PSIC, as required under Para 2.51 of the Handbook of Procedure, FTP 2023, read with CBIC Circular No. 48/2016 and DGFT Trade Notice No. 19/2017.

    The Additional Commissioner of Customs passed an order for:

    • Absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962,
    • Imposition of redemption fine of β‚Ή60,000 for re-export under Section 125, and
    • Penalty of β‚Ή1.7 lakhs on the importer and β‚Ή5,000 on the customs broker under Section 112(a).

    The order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the importer to appeal before CESTAT.

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

    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 Allahabad Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Seized Betel Nuts

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Seized Betel Nuts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.07.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Bank Guarantee Condition for Provisional Release of Seized Betel Nuts

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, in Final Order No. 70433/2025 dated 30.06.2025, ruled in favour of M/s B P Wire Industry, setting aside the condition of furnishing bank guarantees for the provisional release of seized betel nuts and betel nut powder. The case arose out of alleged misdeclaration and subsequent seizure under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    M/s B P Wire Industry, a Star Export House, had imported betel nuts under the MOOWR Scheme for the manufacture and export of flavoured supari. These goods were detained and later seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration under Sections 111(m) and 111(o) of the Customs Act for imports, and under Section 118(i) for exports.

    The DRI later withdrew its objection to the provisional release and communicated “No Objection” via a letter dated 25.09.2024. However, the Commissioner (Customs Preventive), Lucknow, imposed a stringent bank guarantee condition for provisional release, leading the appellant to approach the Delhi High Court and then CESTAT.

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

    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

  • Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.06.2025

    Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs (ICD Import) vs. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd., has upheld the right of the importer to claim refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the one-year limitation condition prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended.

    The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CESTAT’s decision, marking a key precedent for SAD refund claims and interpretation of refund limitations under customs notifications.

    Case Background

    • Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. had imported goods on payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) and later sold them in the domestic market, paying VAT/CST, as required under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
    • The company sought refund of SAD under the said notification but filed claims beyond the one-year period stipulated by the 2008 amendment to the notification (Notification No. 93/2008-Cus).
    • The Department rejected the refund, citing delay, leading to the matter being contested before CESTAT, which allowed the refund.
    • The Department filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, relying on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in CMS Info Systems Ltd. v. UOI [2017 (349) ELT 236 (Bom)], which had upheld the one-year limitation.

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

    Source: Delhi 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