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 Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that provides relief to M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL) in a long-standing dispute over provisional refunds and interest liability. ​ The case revolved around the refund of excise duty under area-based exemption notifications and the subsequent demand for interest on provisional refunds sanctioned to the company. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases and highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. ​

    Background of the Case

    GCPL had set up manufacturing units in Assam and was availing 100% refund of duty paid under Notification No. ​ 20/2007-CE. However, an amendment via Notification No. 20/2008-CE restricted the refund to 34% of the total duty paid, with an option for manufacturers to apply for special value addition rates. ​ GCPL challenged the amended notification before the Gauhati High Court, which initially struck it down. ​ The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of the amended notification. ​

    During the litigation, GCPL was granted provisional refunds amounting to Rs. ​ 24,00,07,627/- based on interim orders from the Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court. ​ After the Supreme Court’s final decision, the Department adjusted these refunds against the amounts determined under special value addition rates, leaving a net excess refund of Rs. ​ 50,96,571/-.

    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 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 Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​ ​ ​ ​

    In a recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, the imposition of a late fee of Rs. 14,95,000 under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, was set aside. This case, involving M/s. ​ ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. ​ Ltd., highlights the importance of considering the circumstances leading to delays in filing Bills of Entry and the need for judicious application of late fees. ​

    Case Background

    The dispute arose when M/s. ​ Vazhavilla Cashews, Kollam, the original importer, failed to clear a consignment of dried raw cashew nuts. ​ The goods were subsequently sold on a high-seas basis to M/s. ​ Ambalakkara Cashews, who filed a Bill of Entry on 12.08.2017. ​ However, due to financial issues, the shipper recalled the original documents and identified M/s. ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. ​ Ltd. as the new buyer.

    The procedural delays began when the new buyer applied for an amendment to the Import General Manifest (IGM) on 03.11.2017. ​ The amendment was approved on 12.12.2017, and the earlier Bill of Entry was canceled on 09.01.2018. ​ The new Bill of Entry was filed promptly on 12.01.2018. ​ Despite these efforts, the Customs Department imposed a late fee, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). ​ This led the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

    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 Chennai Rejected CB License revocation but upholds Penalty on the Customs Broker

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected CB License revocation but upholds Penalty on the Customs Broker

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rejected Revenue Appeal and Upholds Penalty on Customs Broker ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue against the penalty imposed on M/s. ​ Allwin Cargo Services, a Customs Broker (CB). ​ The case revolved around alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013), and the Tribunal’s decision highlights the importance of proportionality in adjudicating penalties under regulatory frameworks. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chennai, which uncovered smuggled cigarettes worth Rs. ​ 4.13 crore in a consignment declared as “Low Melting Steel Bundle Scrap.” While the live consignment was linked to another Customs Broker, Sameer Logistics Pvt. ​ Ltd., the investigation revealed that M/s. Allwin Cargo Services had handled past consignments allegedly adopting similar methods of smuggling. ​ A Show Cause Notice was issued to M/s. ​ Allwin Cargo Services, alleging violations of CBLR, 2013, including non-verification of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) details and coordination with unauthorized individuals. ​ The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013, but did not revoke the CB’s license or forfeit the security deposit.

    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 Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker Licence

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker Licence

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Revocation of Customs Broker Licence​ ​ ​

    In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the revocation of the customs broker license of M/s Brightline (C&F) Agency. The Tribunal also overturned the forfeiture of the security deposit and the penalty imposed on the agency, providing much-needed relief to the appellant. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & General), New Delhi, on June 15, 2021. ​ The order alleged that M/s Brightline had violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, by filing shipping bills for exporters who were later found to be non-existent. ​ This led to the revocation of their customs broker license, forfeiture of their security deposit of β‚Ή75,000, and the imposition of a β‚Ή50,000 penalty. ​ The allegations stemmed from an analysis conducted by the Directorate General of Analytics & Risk Management (DGARM), which flagged certain exporters as “risky” based on GST registration data. ​ Among the 89 exporters identified, verification reports were provided for only four, and M/s Brightline was accused of handling consignments for these entities.

    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- Customs authorities cannot independently demand IGST without DGFT recalling

    CESTAT Chennai- Customs authorities cannot independently demand IGST without DGFT recalling

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- Customs authorities cannot independently demand IGST without DGFT recalling ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has delivered a judgment that provides much-needed clarity and relief to importers under the Advance Authorization Scheme (AAS). The case involved M/s. ​ Suryadev Alloys and Power (P) Ltd., which challenged the imposition of IGST, interest, redemption fine, and penalty for alleged violations of the “pre-import condition” during the GST transition phase. ​ The tribunal’s decision has far-reaching implications for importers and exporters navigating the complexities of customs law and GST compliance.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from imports made by M/s. Suryadev Alloys under the Advance Authorization Scheme between October 13, 2017, and January 9, 2019. ​ The appellant claimed IGST exemption under Customs Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus, even after the introduction of the “pre-import condition” via Notification No. ​ 79/2017-Cus. The customs authorities alleged non-compliance with the pre-import condition and issued a demand for IGST, interest, redemption fine, and penalty. ​ The appellant argued that the pre-import condition was impossible to fulfill for authorizations issued before October 13, 2017, as exports had already been completed prior to imports. ​ Additionally, the appellant highlighted that the jurisdictional DGFT had issued redemption letters for all Advance Authorizations, confirming the fulfillment of export obligations.

    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 Hyderabad Upholds Validity of Malaysian Certificates of Origin

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Validity of Malaysian Certificates of Origin

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.08.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds Validity of Malaysian Certificates of Origin​ ​ ​

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals concerning the import of cocoa powder under preferential trade agreements. This decision, pronounced on August 22, 2025, sheds light on the interpretation of Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), the validity of Certificates of Origin, and the application of extended limitation periods under customs law. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the case and its implications.

    Background of the Case

    The appellantsβ€”M/s Malta Exports, M/s Ravi Foods Pvt Ltd, M/s Pahal Foods Pvt Ltd, M/s Kamala Consumer Care Pvt Ltd, and M/s Dukes Consumer Care Ltdβ€”imported cocoa powder from Malaysia, claiming concessional duty benefits under Notification No. ​ 46/2011-Cus and Notification No. ​ 53/2011-Cus. These benefits were based on Certificates of Origin issued by the Malaysian Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI), certifying that the Regional Value Content (RVC) of the cocoa powder exceeded 35% of the Free on Board (FOB) value. ​

    However, the customs authorities issued show cause notices (SCNs) alleging that the RVC requirement was not met, relying on a 2014 Board letter. ​ The authorities demanded differential duty, imposed penalties, and denied the exemption benefits. ​ Aggrieved by these orders, the appellants approached the tribunal.

    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 Hyderabad

    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 Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the impugned order against M/s Swastik Stockists and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and its late director, Appellant. ​ The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods, including carpets, multimedia speakers, and blankets, leading to demands for differential customs duties, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. ​ This decision marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of customs laws and the burden of proof in such cases. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s Swastik Stockists and Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported multiple consignments of carpets, speakers, and blankets between 2011 and 2014. While most consignments were cleared without objections, one consignment of speakers was detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during an investigation. ​ The DRI alleged undervaluation and misclassification of goods, issuing a Show Cause Notice in 2014 and confirming demands in an adjudication order in 2017.

    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 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 Chennai Clarifies Law on Validity of DEPB Licences for Innocent Buyers

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Law on Validity of DEPB Licences for Innocent Buyers

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Law on Validity of DEPB Licences for Innocent Buyers​ ​ ​

    On August 21, 2025, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, delivered a significant judgment in Customs Appeal Nos. 40971 and 41142 of 2015. ​ This decision, involving The India Cements Ltd. and Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd., has far-reaching implications for importers who unknowingly purchase duty entitlement scrips obtained fraudulently by the original license holders. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appeals arose from Order-in-Original No. ​ 144/2015 issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. ​ The case revolved around the fraudulent acquisition of DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) licenses by CEEAN Commerce (P) Ltd., Kolkata, which were later sold to innocent transferee importers, including the appellants. ​ These licenses were used to avail customs duty exemptions during imports. The Customs authorities, after investigation, alleged that the licenses were obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. ​ Consequently, they demanded duty along with interest and imposed penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Tribunal.

    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

  • Gujarat High Court allows IGST Refund against Advance Authorization Exports says Rule 96(10) removed for good

    Gujarat High Court allows IGST Refund against Advance Authorization Exports says Rule 96(10) removed for good

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.08.2025

    Gujarat High Court allows IGST Refund against Advance Authorization Exports says Rule 96(10) removed for good ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    The Gujarat High Court recently delivered a significant judgment addressing the omission of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, and its implications for exporters seeking refunds of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on exports. This ruling has far-reaching consequences for businesses engaged in international trade and clarifies the legal position on pending refund claims.

    Background of Rule 96(10)

    Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules was introduced to restrict exporters from claiming refunds of IGST paid on exports if they availed benefits under certain exemption notifications for duty-free procurement of inputs. ​ This rule aimed to prevent exporters from enjoying “double benefits”β€”duty-free procurement and IGST refunds. ​ However, exporters faced significant challenges due to this restriction, especially when only a small portion of their inputs were procured duty-free.

    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: Gujarat 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 Delhi Quashes Penalty on Bentley Motors in Customs Valuation Dispute

    CESTAT Delhi Quashes Penalty on Bentley Motors in Customs Valuation Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Quashes Penalty on Bentley Motors in Customs Valuation Dispute ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- imposed on M/s Bentley Motors Ltd. under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation of imported Bentley cars by their Indian dealer, M/s Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd., and the subsequent evasion of customs duty. ​

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had initiated an investigation into the import of Bentley cars by Exclusive Motors, alleging that the dealer undervalued the cars by not including additional payments made to Bentley Motors through supplementary invoices. ​ These supplementary invoices were reportedly issued when cars were transported by air instead of by ship, leading to additional freight costs. ​

    The Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj, New Delhi, had earlier confirmed the demand for differential customs duty of Rs. ​ 71.74 crore along with interest and imposed penalties on Exclusive Motors, its Managing Director, National Sales Manager, and Bentley Motors. While the appeals of the other three noticees were allowed by the Tribunal in November 2024, Bentley Motors’ appeal was heard separately.

    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