ALO Partners Logo

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

Category: LAW

  • CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.4.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench, in Final Order No. 40976/2024 dated 26 July 2024, upheld the classification of aluminium composite circles under CTH 7606, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai against M/s Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.

    Case Background:

    • Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances imported goods declared as “Aluminium Circles and Induction Base”.
    • The revenue reclassified the items as “Other articles of aluminium” under CTH 7616, demanding differential duty of β‚Ή16.13 lakhs.
    • The department argued that the goods were not simple aluminium circles but were embossed with stainless steel, making them composite items with a specific use.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench (Court No. 2) has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s Kiran Trading Company, thereby upholding the order of the Commissioner (Port), Kolkata, which had dropped proceedings initiated under a DRI show cause notice.

    Case Background:

    1. The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original dated 23.10.2018, which dropped charges of mis-declaration of value and evasion of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imports of Chinese-origin Melamine by M/s Kiran Trading Company. ​
    2. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged over-invoicing to evade ADD, based on investigations and analysis of import patterns.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.4.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi Reinforces that interest in delayed IGST payments must be computed using CGST framework provisions, not the customs law

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s JLC Electromet Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur. ​ This decision sheds light on the nuanced distinction between Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) and Additional Duty of Customs, as well as the applicability of interest on delayed IGST payments. ​ Let’s dive into the details of this case and its implications.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported goods under 13 Advance Authorizations, availing exemptions from Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and IGST. ​ However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) found that the exemption from IGST was incorrectly claimed, as the appellant did not fulfill the “actual user” condition required under the scheme. ​ Upon being notified, the appellant paid the IGST along with interest.

    The dispute arose over the interest payment. ​ The appellant argued that IGST, being an Additional Duty of Customs, should not attract interest under the provisions of the Customs Act, citing precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. ​ The Commissioner of Customs, however, appropriated the interest paid by the appellant, leading to this appeal.

    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 New Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO Document 18.04.2025Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com