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 Ahmedabad Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.09.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside IGST Demand and Penalties

    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), Ahmedabad, has delivered justice to AMNS Ports Hazira Ltd. (formerly Essar Bulk Terminal Pvt. ​ Ltd.) and its employee, Appellant, by setting aside the IGST demand of β‚Ή12.12 crore and associated penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad. ​ This ruling marks a significant victory for the appellants, who were embroiled in a dispute over the import of capital goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme. ​

    Background of the Case

    AMNS Ports Hazira Ltd., a provider of port services, imported capital goods such as Ship Unloader, Barge, and Railmount under EPCG Authorization No. ​ 5230026626 dated January 21, 2019. ​ The company availed exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and IGST under Customs Notification No. ​ 16/2015-Cus, as amended by Notification No. ​ 79/2017-Cus. The authorization required the company to fulfill an export obligation equivalent to six times the duty saved within six years, i.e., by January 20, 2025. ​

    The dispute arose when the Revenue alleged that the company had availed IGST exemption despite receiving payments in rupee terms for services rendered, which, as per the amended notification, disqualified them from claiming the exemption. ​ The Commissioner of Customs imposed a demand for IGST, confiscated the imported goods, and levied penalties on both the company and its employee.

    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 Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

    CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

    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, dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai, against Appellant. The Tribunal upheld the original adjudication order, which had cleared the respondent of any contravention under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision not only reinforces the principles of judicial discipline but also highlights the importance of adhering to due process in customs-related disputes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the import of coal by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd and M/s Rosa Power Supply Co Ltd. ​ The notice alleged undervaluation of goods and sought penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. ​ Appellant, a director of Century Exports Ltd, was named as an incidental noticee, despite having no direct involvement in the processing of the imported goods. ​

    The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, had earlier dropped the proceedings against the principal noticees and auxiliary parties, including Appellant, citing a lack of evidence. ​ However, the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II) appealed this decision before the Tribunal, seeking penalties against the respondent.

    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 Rejected DRI’s Reclassification and Extended Limitation

    CESTAT Delhi Rejected DRI’s Reclassification and Extended Limitation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Rejected DRI’s Reclassification and Extended Limitation

    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), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has ruled in favor of M/s Videocon D2H Limited (now Dish TV India Limited) in a long-standing dispute over the classification of imported smart cards. The case, which revolved around the classification of “smart cards” used in set-top boxes, has significant implications for importers and the interpretation of customs laws. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that Videocon had misclassified imported “smart cards” under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8523 52 90, which pertains to smart cards, to avail duty exemptions. ​ The DRI contended that the cards were not “smart cards” but parts of set-top boxes, classifiable under CTI 8529 90 90, and thus not eligible for the claimed exemptions. ​ The DRI issued a show cause notice (SCN) demanding a duty of β‚Ή56.47 crore, along with penalties and interest, and sought to confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    ​Videocon, along with its executives, challenged the DRI’s findings, asserting that the imported cards met the definition of “smart cards” under Chapter Note 5(b) of Chapter 85 of the Customs Tariff and were correctly classified.

    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

  • Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs Dispute

    Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs 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 judgment delivered on August 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed the contentious issue of seizure and provisional release of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The case involved M/s Nageswara Trade, which had filed two writ petitions challenging the seizure of its imported multi-functional devices and photocopier machines. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when the Customs Department seized goods imported by M/s Nageswara Trade under Bill of Entry No. ​ 5518018 dated September 10, 2024. ​ The seizure memo, issued on January 2, 2025, cited non-compliance with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration and restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary, as the memo did not specify the violation, and sought provisional release of the goods.

    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

  • CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Rs. 1.5 Crore Penalty on Freight Forwarder

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Rs. 1.5 Crore Penalty on Freight Forwarder

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Rs. 1.5 Crore Penalty on Freight Forwarder ​ ​

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set aside penalties totaling Rs. ​ 1.5 crore imposed on Appellant, a freight forwarder, under Sections 112(a)(i), 112(b)(i), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This judgment not only provides relief to Appellant but also sets a precedent for freight forwarders and other peripheral service providers in the logistics industry.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of mis-declaration of imported goods in three consignments. ​ Appellant, the Director of M/s. ​ NAF Logistics Private Limited (NLPL), was accused of acting as both the overseas supplier and the freight forwarder, thereby allegedly assisting in the mis-declaration. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata, imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 50,00,000/- each under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, totaling Rs. ​ 1.5 crore.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the Correct classification of IC-Codecs

    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), New Delhi, M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. emerged victorious in a long-standing dispute over the classification of imported goods. The case revolved around whether the imported “IC-Codecs” should be classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8542 39 00, as claimed by Samsung, or under CTI 8517 62 90, as determined by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​ The decision, pronounced on July 22, 2024, has far-reaching implications for importers and the electronics industry.

    Background of the Case

    Samsung India Electronics Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of mobile phones and tablets, imports “IC-Codecs” for use in its production processes. ​ These goods are electronic integrated circuits that function as compressors/decompressors when mounted on a Printed Circuit Board (PCB). Samsung classified these goods under CTI 8542 39 00, which covers “Other Electronic Integrated Circuits,” and availed a concessional duty rate under a notification dated March 1, 2005. ​

    However, during an audit, the Customs Department argued that the goods should be classified under CTI 8517 62 90 as “Other Communication Apparatus,” attracting higher customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). ​ This led to a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. ​ 1.89 crore, along with interest.

    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 Delhi Sets Aside Non-Speaking Order on Provisional Release

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Non-Speaking Order on Provisional Release

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Non-Speaking Order on Provisional Release

    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 the provisional release order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Indore, in the case of Rudras Overseas. The case highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, and ensuring transparency in decision-making processes. ​

    Background

    Rudras Overseas, an importer based in Indore, filed a Bill of Entry on November 23, 2019, for a shipment of nutrition supplements. ​ Customs duty of Rs. ​ 7,53,643/- was paid, but the goods were detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for examination. ​ Concerned about the perishable nature of the goods, the appellant applied for provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act on December 26, 2019. ​ During the investigation, the appellant deposited Rs. ​ 10 lakh as requested. ​

    On April 27, 2020, the Assistant Commissioner issued a communication stating that the goods could be provisionally released upon execution of a bond worth Rs. ​ 86,22,915/- and furnishing a bank guarantee/security of Rs. ​ 1,38,19,048/-. However, the appellant challenged this order, claiming it lacked reasoning and transparency.

    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 Chandigarh – No CENVAT Reversal Required on Written-Off Inventory

    CESTAT Chandigarh – No CENVAT Reversal Required on Written-Off Inventory

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh – No CENVAT Reversal Required on Written-Off Inventory​

    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), Chandigarh, recently delivered its judgment in the case of M/s Delta Energy Systems India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III. ​ This case revolved around the reversal of CENVAT credit on obsolete inventory and the invocation of the extended period of limitation by the Department. ​ The Tribunal’s decision, pronounced on 18th September 2025, provides clarity on key issues related to CENVAT credit and procedural compliance.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Delta Energy Systems India Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing of Power Rectifier Systems and UPS Systems, as well as trading in franking machines, EPABX, and modems, faced a demand from the Central Excise Department. ​ The demand arose after an audit revealed that the company had written off obsolete inventory worth β‚Ή3,51,88,130 in its financial statements for the year ending 31st March 2007. ​ The Department alleged that the company was required to reverse the CENVAT credit availed on the written-off inventory. ​

    The company contended that it had separate divisions for manufacturing and trading, with distinct records maintained for each. ​ It argued that no CENVAT credit was availed on the traded inventory, and for the manufacturing inventory, the applicable duty had already been reversed in 2005. ​ Despite this, the Department issued a show cause notice on 8th October 2010, invoking the extended period of limitation.

    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 Kolkata Sets Aside Refund Demand

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Refund Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Refund Demand

    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 delivered justice to M/s. Puyang Refractories Group Company (India) Pvt. ​ Ltd. by setting aside the impugned order demanding a refund amount of Rs. 11,64,043/-. The case, which revolved around procedural lapses and delayed issuance of a Show Cause Notice, highlights the importance of adhering to legal timelines and ensuring proper communication in adjudication processes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s. Puyang Refractories Group Company, was sanctioned a refund of Rs. ​ 11,64,043/- on 17.11.2014. ​ However, the Department later initiated proceedings to recover the refunded amount, alleging it was erroneously granted. ​ A Show Cause Notice was issued on 05.06.2017, nearly two and a half years after the refund was sanctioned. ​ Subsequently, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand. ​

    The appellant contended that they were unaware of the proceedings as the Show Cause Notice and the Order-in-Original were not received by them. ​ It was only upon receiving a recovery letter in March 2019 that they requested a copy of the Order-in-Original, which was provided on 07.03.2019. ​ Acting promptly, the appellant filed an appeal on 22.04.2019. ​ However, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing a delay in filing beyond the prescribed ninety-day period.

    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

  • Case Compilation on Indian Customs Law- Pro Industry cases

    Case Compilation on Indian Customs Law- Pro Industry cases

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 20.09.2025

    Case Compilation on Indian Customs Law- Pro Industry cases

    A Comprehensive compilation of Pro-Industry decided cases based upon CESTAT Tribunal, Supreme Court, and various High Court Decisions

    Prepared for Legal Professionals, Importers, Exporters, Customs Brokers, Freight Forwarders, and Industry Stakeholders.

    The document is designed with users in mind:

    – Legal Professionals and Advocates: to strengthen arguments, identify precedents, and analyze emerging jurisprudential trends.

    – Importers and Exporters: to understand compliance obligations, permissible reliefs, and potential liabilities in customs operations.

    – Customs House Agents and Freight Forwarders: to better appreciate their responsibilities, liabilities, and avenues for defense in proceedings.


    – Industry Stakeholders and Policy Analysts: to observe how judicial interpretation influences trade policy, customs procedures, and dispute resolution frameworks.


    The compilation thus stands as a practical handbook for trade compliance, litigation strategy, and informed decision-making.

    Link has been provided for Readers/Users for the source Judicial Orders, which directly opens the source PDF document.

    This Case Compilation 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.

    Sources Referred: CESTAT, Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, Madras High Court, Bombay High Court, High Court of Kerala, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    Pro Industry Customs Case CompilationDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com