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: Ministry of Finance

  • Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​

    Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    Government of India Notifies Cases to Be Heard Exclusively by Principal Bench of GST Appellate Tribunal​ ​ ​ Β 

    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

    On September 17, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued a significant notification (S.O. ​ 4219(E)) under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). ​ This notification outlines specific cases or classes of cases that will be heard exclusively by the Principal Bench of the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). ​ The decision, made on the recommendations of the GST Council, aims to streamline the appellate process and ensure consistency in judgments on critical legal matters.

    Key Highlights of the Notification

    The notification, issued under the third proviso to sub-section (5) of section 109 of the CGST Act, specifies three categories of cases that will be heard solely by Principal Bench:

    1. Cases Pending Before Multiple State Benches ​ If a case is pending before two or more State Benches and the President of the GSTAT is satisfied that an identical question of law is involved, such cases will be transferred to the Principal Bench. ​ This provision ensures uniformity in legal interpretation across states and avoids conflicting judgments.
    2. Cases Involving Sections 14 or 14A of the IGST Act, 2017 ​ Any case where one or more issues are covered under section 14 or section 14A of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act) will be heard by the Principal Bench. ​ These sections deal with the determination of the place of supply and special provisions for goods and services, which are critical for interstate transactions.
    3. Cases Involving Section 20 of the CGST Act, 2017 ​ Cases involving issues under section 20 of the CGST Act, which pertains to the application of provisions of the CGST Act to the Union Territories, will also be heard by the Principal Bench. ​ This ensures that matters related to Union Territories are addressed uniformly.

    Source: Ministry of Finance

    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 holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable

    CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai holds that the demand for anti-dumping duty and penalties was unsustainable ​ ​

    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), Chennai, has delivered a favorable judgment for M/s. Olympic Enterprises and its proprietor’s son, in a long-standing dispute over anti-dumping duty on imported measuring tapes. ​ The appeals, which were inter-related, were heard together and disposed of by a common order on September 17, 2025. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the import of “fibre glass measuring tapes” by M/s. ​ Olympic Enterprises, which were declared as “tailor tapes” in the bills of entry. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer deliberately misdeclared the goods to evade anti-dumping duty applicable to such imports from China under Notification No. ​ 49/2009–Cus. dated May 15, 2009. ​ The department also accused the importer of suppressing facts and violating provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. ​

    Following investigations, the adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods, imposed anti-dumping duty of Rs. ​ 47,36,512/-, and levied penalties on both the importer and Appellant, ​ The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudicating authority’s order, prompting the appellants to approach 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 Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty

    CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Emphasized that 100% Export-Oriented Units (EOUs) are exempt from safeguard duty​ ​

    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), New Delhi, has ruled in favor of M/s Alpex Solar Pvt. Ltd., a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU), exempting them from the imposition of safeguard duty under Section 8B(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ This judgment, delivered on September 16, 2025, sets a significant precedent for EOUs across India.

    Background of the Case

    Alpex Solar Pvt. ​ Ltd., engaged in the manufacturing and export of solar panels, imported Multi Silicon Solar Cells from Taiwan in 2018. ​ The company filed Bills of Entry at a nil rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and paid IGST at 5%, availing exemptions under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus. However, in March 2019, the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch observed that the company had not paid safeguard duty at 25%, imposed under Notification No. ​ 1/2018-(SG). ​ A show-cause notice was issued, alleging that the goods imported were of Taiwanese origin, which did not qualify for exemption under Notification No. ​ 19/2016-Cus (NT). ​

    The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed the demand for safeguard duty, IGST interest, and penalties, leading Alpex Solar Pvt. ​ Ltd. to challenge the order before CESTAT.

    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 Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods

    CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- Technical assistance fees not to be included in the value of imported 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 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, the inclusion of technical assistance fees in the assessable value of imported goods under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 (CVR) was thoroughly examined. ​ The case, involving M/s. ​ Seiren India Pvt. ​ Ltd., sheds light on the nuanced interpretation of customs valuation laws and the distinction between pre-import and post-import activities. This decision is a landmark in clarifying the scope of Rule 10(1)(c) and its application to technical assistance fees.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Seiren India Pvt. ​ Ltd., a subsidiary of Japanese companies, entered into an “Assistance and Service Agreement” with its overseas parent entities for technical, marketing, and other assistance required for setting up a manufacturing facility in Mysore. ​ The company imported raw materials, consumables, and capital goods, including tools and spares, from related and unrelated suppliers. The dispute arose when the adjudicating authority added the technical assistance fees paid by the appellant to the value of imported goods, citing Rule 10(1)(c) of CVR, 2007. ​ This decision was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellant to approach CESTAT.

    Connected Matter

    Supreme Court Refines the Doctrine of Royalty Inclusion in Import Valuation

    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 Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties in Customs Under-Valuation ​ ​

    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, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, has set aside penalties imposed on two appellants, in a case involving allegations of under-valuation and mis-declaration of imported goods by M/s Prince International. ​ The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), highlights the importance of evidence-based findings and the proper application of legal provisions in customs cases.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) into M/s Prince International, Ludhiana, which was accused of evading customs duty by under-valuing and mis-declaring bicycle parts and pumps imported from China. ​ Following the investigation, penalties were imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly aiding and abetting the importer in the evasion of customs duty.

    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 Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 17.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Penalties in Alleged Onion Export​ ​ ​  

    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), Allahabad, has set aside penalties imposed on three appellants accused of illegally exporting onions to Nepal under the guise of potatoes. ​ The case, which revolved around alleged violations of a government ban on onion exports, highlights the importance of admissible evidence and procedural safeguards in adjudication processes. ​ This blog delves into the details of the case and the Tribunal’s reasoning behind its decision.

    Background of the Case

    The controversy began with the issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 29, 2020, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). ​ The SCN alleged that M/s Sai Ram Enterprises, its proprietor Appellants (a Superintendent at the Land Customs Station, Toothibari) were involved in exporting onions to Nepal despite a ban imposed by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) through Notification No. 21/2019-20 dated September 29, 2019. The onions were allegedly exported under the guise of potatoes using falsified shipping bills. ​ The Joint Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the SCN and imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 5,00,000 each on the appellants under Sections 114AA and 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ These penalties were upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellants to approach the Tribunal.

    Connected Matter

    Punjab & Haryana High Court Mandates Strict Compliance with Section 9D

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Customs authorities cannot deny duty exemptions when export obligations are certified as fulfilled by the DGFT ​ ​

    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.

    ​​

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. ​ This case, which revolved around the classification of imported goods under the Advance Authorization Scheme, has far-reaching implications for importers and exporters operating under similar schemes. ​

    Background of the Case ​

    Svam Toyal Packaging Industries Pvt. ​ Ltd., a manufacturer and exporter of aluminum foils used in pharmaceutical packaging, had obtained eight Advance Authorizations (AAs) from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). ​ These authorizations allowed duty-free import of raw materials, including aluminum foil (50 MIC Β± 10%), under the condition that the company fulfilled its export obligations. ​

    The dispute arose when the Customs Department alleged that the imported goods were misclassified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7607 19 91 instead of CTH 7607 11 90. ​ The department argued that this misclassification rendered the imports ineligible for duty exemption under Notification No. ​ 18/2015-Cus. Consequently, a demand for differential customs duty of β‚Ή21.43 crore, along with interest and a penalty of β‚Ή50 lakh, was raised.

    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 Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Quashes Confiscation of β‚Ή15 Lakh Cash​ ​

    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), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has ruled in favor of the appellant, Appellant in a case involving the confiscation of Indian currency worth Rs. 15,00,000 and the imposition of a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble, Member (Judicial), on September 15, 2025, sets a significant precedent in cases involving alleged illegal currency transportation.

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from an incident on November 20, 2019, when Indian currency amounting to Rs. ​ 15,00,000 was seized from Appellant near Rabindranagar, Tripura, by a joint team of Customs Preventive Force and BSF personnel. The authorities alleged that the currency was intended for illegal export to Bangladesh through the unfenced border area. ​ Subsequently, Appellant claimed ownership of the seized currency, explaining its legitimate source.

    A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, citing contradictory statements about the location and circumstances of the seizure. ​ While one part of the notice stated that the currency was recovered near the unfenced border area at 17:45 hours, another part mentioned that a person was apprehended moving suspiciously toward the border at 18:40 hours. ​ These inconsistencies formed the crux of the appellant’s defense.

    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- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Product

    Supreme Court- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Product

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.09.2025

    Supreme Court- Crude Degummed Soyabean Oil Not an Agricultural Product​ ​ ​ Β 

    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 judgment delivered on May 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal of Noble Resources and Trading India Private Limited (formerly Andagro Services Pvt. ​ Ltd.) against the Union of India and others. ​ The case revolved around the classification of crude degummed soyabean oil and its eligibility for duty exemption under the Export-Import (EXIM) Policy of 2002-2007. ​

    Background of the Case

    Noble Resources, a two-star export house, had imported crude degummed soyabean oil under a duty-free credit entitlement (DFCE) certificate issued as per the EXIM Policy. The company claimed exemption from customs duty under Notification No. ​ 53/2003-Cus. dated April 1, 2003. ​ However, the customs department denied the exemption, arguing that crude degummed soyabean oil was an agricultural product and thus excluded from the benefits of the notification. ​

    The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, in an order dated January 9, 2007, upheld the department’s view and demanded duties amounting to Rs. ​ 1,00,38,321. This decision was later affirmed by the Gujarat High Court in 2019. ​ Noble Resources then approached the Supreme Court.

    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

  • Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation

    Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 15.09.2025

    Supreme Court of India Upholds CESTAT Decision in Customs Valuation ​ ​

     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.

    On October 6, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas (2023INSC881), addressing critical issues related to customs valuation under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment, authored by Justice, upheld the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) decision, which had set aside the customs department’s order enhancing the value of imported goods and imposing penalties on the importer. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of under-invoicing by M/s Ganpati Overseas, which had imported tuners and saw filters from Hong Kong during 1997-1999. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the importer had declared lower prices for the goods to evade customs duty. ​ The department relied on unattested photocopies of export declarations filed by the foreign supplier before the Hong Kong customs authority, which showed higher prices than those declared in the import invoices.

    The adjudicating authority rejected the import invoice prices and enhanced the value of the goods under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. ​ Penalties were imposed on the importer and its proprietor. ​ However, the CESTAT overturned this decision, leading to the department’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

    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