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)

Latest Posts

  • CESTAT Kolkata Orders β‚Ή73 Lakh Drawback Refund to Nidhi Distributors After 22 Years

    CESTAT Kolkata Orders β‚Ή73 Lakh Drawback Refund to Nidhi Distributors After 22 Years

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Orders β‚Ή73 Lakh Drawback Refund to Nidhi Distributors After 22 Years

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata Bench has allowed their appeal in a long-pending dispute dating back to 2002 regarding drawback claims totaling over β‚Ή73 lakhs. The Tribunal directed the Customs department to process the refund, subject to verification of export realization.

    Case Background:

    • Appellant: M/s Nidhi Distributors
    • Respondent: Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata
    • Appeal No.: Customs Appeal No. 75944 of 2021
    • Date of Final Order: 23 February 2024
    • Original Issue: Rejection of drawback claim on exports of T-shirts and Gents Shirts under 33 shipping bills from June–August 2002

    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 Grants SAD Refund to LG Electronics

    CESTAT Chennai Grants SAD Refund to LG Electronics

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.05.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Grants SAD Refund to LG Electronics

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench has allowed the appeal filed by M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the denial of β‚Ή1,35,179/- of Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: M/s LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida
    • Commissionerate: Chennai Seaport
    • Appeal No.: Customs Appeal No. 42340 of 2014
    • Date of Order: 16 February 2024
    • Tribunal Members: Mrs. Sulekha Beevi (Judicial) and Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao (Technical)

    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- Honest Valuation Error Not Penalized

    CESTAT Delhi- Honest Valuation Error Not Penalized

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.05.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Honest Valuation Error Not Penalized

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi has allowed a group of appeals filed by M/s Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd., along with its directors and employees, setting aside a customs duty demand of β‚Ή25,53,891 and penalties imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The Tribunal held that the valuation errorβ€”treating Ex-Works prices as FOB for air importsβ€”was a genuine mistake and not a willful misstatement. Hence, the extended limitation period and penalties were held to be inapplicable.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd. & its Directors
    • Nature of Imports: Goods imported by air on Ex-Works basis
    • Dispute: Incorrect computation of transport cost under Rule 10(2) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007
    • Duty Demanded: β‚Ή25.53 lakh
    • Penalties: Under Sections 114A and 114AA
    • Relevant Provisions:
      • Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 (Valuation)
      • Rule 10(2) of Valuation Rules (Inclusion of freight & insurance)
      • Fifth proviso to Rule 10(2) (Air freight cap at 20% of FOB value)

    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 Bangalore Quashes SVB Valuation and Royalty Loading on Imports

    CESTAT Bangalore Quashes SVB Valuation and Royalty Loading on Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.05.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Quashes SVB Valuation and Royalty Loading on Imports

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench allowed the appeal filed by M/s Chem Rend Chemicals Co. Pvt. Ltd., quashing the 100% loading of invoice value and rejection of declared transaction value on imports from its parent company, Chem Trend, USA. The Tribunal also set aside the addition of royalty under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

    Background of the Case

    • Appellant: Chem Rend Chemicals Co. Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore
    • Imported Goods: Industrial mould release agents and dye lubricants
    • Supplier: Related party – Chem Trend, USA
    • DRI/Customs Allegation: Declared value not at arm’s length; addition of royalty payments to assessable value
    • SVB Order: 100% value loading and inclusion of royalty under Rule 10(1)(c)
    • Commissioner (Appeals) Decision: Set aside loading and royalty, but upheld rejection of declared value and remanded case for redetermination
    • CESTAT Appeal: Against partial rejection of declared value and remand for redetermination

    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 Bangalore

    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 Quashes DRI Summons and Complaint in Foreign Currency Case

    Delhi High Court Quashes DRI Summons and Complaint in Foreign Currency Case

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.05.2025

    Delhi High Court Quashes DRI Summons and Complaint in Foreign Currency Case

    The Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. 7919/2023 & CRL.M.A. 29532/2023 quashed the criminal complaint and the summoning order issued against Mr. Pawan Kant Munjal, Executive Chairman of Hero MotoCorp, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The court held that the proceedings were based on a set of facts already conclusively adjudicated in favour of the petitioner, and continuing with the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.

    Background of the Case

    • Petitioner: Pawan Kant Munjal, Executive Chairman, Hero MotoCorp
    • Complaint Filed By: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
    • Subject: Alleged violation involving undeclared foreign currency seized from an aide during an international business trip in 2018
    • Key Event: Mr. Amit Bali, assistant of SEMPL (event coordinator), was found carrying undeclared currency amounting to approx. β‚Ή81 lakh
    • DRI Allegation: The currency belonged to Mr. Munjal and was exported illegally in contravention of the Customs Act and FEMA

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi- Import of MEK-Based Ink Does Not Require Narcotics NOC

    CESTAT Delhi- Import of MEK-Based Ink Does Not Require Narcotics NOC

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.05.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Import of MEK-Based Ink Does Not Require Narcotics NOC

    The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s Videojet Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., holding that the import of ink and ink consumables containing Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK) does not require a No Objection Certificate (NOC) under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Tribunal set aside the confiscation, reclassification, and penalties imposed by Customs under Sections 111(d), 112, and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    • Importer: M/s Videojet Technologies (I) Pvt. Ltd.
    • Goods Imported: Ink and ink-related consumables containing MEK (35% to 99%)
    • Customs Action:
      • Goods seized by the Preventive Commissionerate, New Delhi
      • Reclassified from Chapter 32 (inks) to CTI 29141200 (MEK)
      • Confiscation ordered under Section 111(d)
      • Penalties of β‚Ή10 lakhs under Section 112 and β‚Ή25 lakhs under Section 114AA

    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 Chandigarh Rejects Customs Valuation Based on DRI Alert

    CESTAT Chandigarh Rejects Customs Valuation Based on DRI Alert

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.05.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh Rejects Customs Valuation Based on DRI Alert

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh Bench quashed customs duty enhancements and denial of exemptions imposed on importers Garg Impex and Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal held that the valuation enhancement solely based on a DRI alert and denial of exemption under multiple customs notifications was legally unsustainable.

    Background of the Case

    • Appellants: M/s Garg Impex & M/s Sedna Impex India Pvt. Ltd.
    • Goods: Polyester Knitted Fabrics imported from China
    • Period: April 2012 to October 2013
    • Customs Actions:
      • Enhanced declared value using DRI Alert (F.No. 23/13/2011-DZU dated 09.05.2011)
      • Denied exemption under:
        • Notification No. 30/2004-CE (CVD exemption)
        • Notification No. 72/2005-Cus (as amended) (preferential duty)
        • Notification No. 151/1982-Cus (inland haulage cost rebate)

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi Grants Exemption to Samsung India on Display Assemblies

    CESTAT Delhi Grants Exemption to Samsung India on Display Assemblies

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.05.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Grants Exemption to Samsung India on Display Assemblies

    The Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, ruled in favor of Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., setting aside customs duty demands raised by the department. The case revolved around whether the imported Mechanical Electrical Assembly (MEA) Front used in high-end smartphones like Galaxy Note 10 qualifies for basic customs duty exemption under Serial No. 6(a)(iv) of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus, which covers β€œDisplay Assembly” for mobile phones.

    The Tribunal held that Samsung’s imported Assembly Front meets the criteria of β€œDisplay Assembly” and therefore qualifies for the exemption, rejecting the department’s interpretation that the inclusion of components like battery or receiver disqualified it from the benefit.

    Background of the Case

    • Appellant: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd.
    • Issue: Rejection of exemption claimed on MEA Front assemblies used in smartphone manufacturing
    • Exemption Notification: Serial No. 6(a)(iv) of Notification No. 57/2017-Cus (as amended)
    • Goods in Question: MEA Front containing display, sub-PCBA, non-detachable battery, and waterproofing elements
    • Department’s View: Product does not qualify as β€œDisplay Assembly” since it contains additional sub-parts
    • Total Appeals: 26 (including Customs Appeal No. 51162/2022 and 25 related matters)

    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 Kolkata- valuation enhancement was arbitrary and unsupported

    CESTAT Kolkata- valuation enhancement was arbitrary and unsupported

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata- valuation enhancement was arbitrary and unsupported

    The Eastern Zonal Bench of CESTAT, Kolkata upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of Aahana Commerce Pvt. Ltd., rejecting the Revenue’s appeal challenging the classification and assessable value of imported goods, namely motor controllers and electric tricycle spare parts.

    The Tribunal confirmed that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 8503 0090 and also held that the transaction value declared by the importer was valid, striking down the enhancement made by the assessing officer.

    Background of the Case

    • Importer: Aahana Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata
    • Goods Imported: Motor controllers and electric tricycle spare parts
    • Department’s Actions:
      • Rejected declared value and enhanced the CIF value
      • Reclassified motor controllers from CTH 8503 0090 to CTH 8708 9900
      • Importer paid enhanced duty under protest to avoid demurrage
    • Commissioner (Appeals):
      • Accepted the declared transaction value
      • Restored classification to CTH 8503 0090

    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 Mumbai- Section 114A penalty is not sustainable in absence of culpability

    CESTAT Mumbai- Section 114A penalty is not sustainable in absence of culpability

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.05.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- Section 114A penalty is not sustainable in absence of culpability

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench, in its final order dated 13th May 2025, allowed the appeal filed by M/s Apar Industries Ltd., quashing a customs duty demand of β‚Ή71.05 lakhs, redemption fine of β‚Ή25 lakhs, and penalties imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The Tribunal held that DEPB scrips used for imports prior to their cancellation remain valid, and any demand raised after their cancellation cannot retrospectively affect lawful imports.

    Background of the Case

    • Appellant: M/s Apar Industries Ltd., Mumbai
    • Issue: Customs demand and penalty based on use of DEPB scrips alleged to be fraudulently obtained by original holders
    • Notification Involved: Customs Exemption Notification No. 34/97-Cus. dated 07.04.1997
    • Period of Dispute: Imports during July to November 1998
    • Show Cause Notice Issued: 30.09.2002
    • Duty Demanded: β‚Ή71,05,031
    • Redemption Fine: β‚Ή25,00,000
    • Penalty Imposed: β‚Ή25,00,000 under Section 114A

    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

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

Your Own Law Office

Skip to content ↓