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 New Delhi Rejects DRI’s Undervaluation Claim

    CESTAT New Delhi Rejects DRI’s Undervaluation Claim

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.06.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi Rejects DRI’s Undervaluation Claim

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) that confirmed undervaluation and duty evasion charges against M/s EDAG Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. and its foreign parent EDAG Germany, along with its officials.

    The Tribunal categorically held that there was no additional consideration paid for the imported goods and no legal basis for rejecting the declared transaction value under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.

    Case Background

    • Turnkey Contract: EDAG India entered a β‚Ή22.21 crore turnkey project with Ford India to set up a plant in Chennai, with 49% as import content.
    • Allegation: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that EDAG undervalued imports by β‚Ή6.97 crore, supported by a cancelled invoice of €1 million from EDAG Germany.
    • Action Taken: A detailed SCN was issued in 2009 followed by a common adjudication in 2010, resulting in demands for differential duty, interest, confiscation of goods, and personal penalties.

    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 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 Penalty in DEPB Export Valuation

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty in DEPB Export Valuation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalty in DEPB Export Valuation

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has quashed the β‚Ή10 lakh penalty imposed on him under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty stemmed from alleged involvement in a major export overvaluation case under the DEPB scheme.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolves around alleged fraudulent exports of CD-ROMs by M/s. Sundram Export Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Netcompware Pvt. Ltd., who were accused of inflating Freight on Board (FOB) value to wrongfully avail DEPB (Duty Entitlement Pass Book) benefits.

    • Allegation: Exports were declared at an inflated rate of $19 per CD-ROM, far exceeding actual value.
    • Objective: To fraudulently earn DEPB scrips, later used to import goods duty-free.
    • Appellant’s Alleged Role: Accused of orchestrating the export of CD-ROMs and re-importation under a new entity, M/s. Arvind International.

    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 Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Gold Jewellery Imports Under India–Thailand FTA

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Gold Jewellery Imports Under India–Thailand FTA

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.06.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Gold Jewellery Imports Under India–Thailand FTA

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has set aside the denial of concessional customs duty benefits to importers of gold jewellery from Thailand under the India–Thailand Free Trade Agreement (FTA). The Tribunal held that customs authorities cannot unilaterally reject the Certificate of Origin (CoO) issued by the exporting country without following the designated verification mechanism under the FTA framework.

    This landmark decision comes as a relief to several importers who were denied preferential duty benefits despite submitting valid CoOs issued by the Thai authorities.

    Background of the Dispute

    • Multiple importers imported gold jewellery from Thailand, availing concessional duty benefits under the India–Thailand Early Harvest Scheme of the FTA.
    • The Customs Department rejected the declared origin, citing improper documentation and alleged non-fulfilment of origin criteria, and demanded differential duty along with interest and penalties.
    • The Department proceeded without referring the matter to the Designated Authority in Thailand as per the dispute resolution procedure of the FTA.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi Ruling Favors Wellworth on Service Tax Limitation Grounds

    CESTAT Delhi Ruling Favors Wellworth on Service Tax Limitation Grounds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Ruling Favors Wellworth on Service Tax Limitation Grounds

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, M/s. Wellworth Project Developers Pvt. Ltd. secured major relief as the Tribunal set aside the bulk of a β‚Ή2.4 crore service tax demand. The case revolved around the invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, for the period 2013–18.

    Key Case Highlights:

    Background:

    The dispute stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 11.10.2019 that raised a demand of β‚Ή2,40,96,546/- covering legal services, corporate guarantees, and advances from customers. The Commissioner had confirmed this demand along with interest and penalties, citing suppression of facts under the extended limitation period.

    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 Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Target Plus Scheme Dispute

    CESTAT Chennai Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Target Plus Scheme Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.06.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Target Plus Scheme Dispute

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench – Court No. III has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal against M/s. Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd. (BIEL). The tribunal upheld the importer’s claim for duty exemption under the Target Plus Scheme (TPS), marking a significant judgment on the scope of β€œactual user” and β€œbroad nexus” in post-export incentive schemes.

    Case Background

    • Respondent: M/s. Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd. (BIEL), New Delhi
    • Appellant: Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai
    • Dispute: Use of Target Plus Licences to import plastic granules (e.g., HDPE, LDPE, PP) through high seas sales, where the imported goods were allegedly not used in BIEL’s exported product (rice).
    • Revenue’s Claim: Misuse of TPS benefits due to lack of actual use of imported plastic granules in the exported rice products; alleged violation of Para 3.7.6 of FTP 2004–09, Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., and Customs Circulars 21/2007 and 45/2007.

    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 Clears HP India in Misdeclaration Allegation on Laptop Imports

    CESTAT Delhi Clears HP India in Misdeclaration Allegation on Laptop Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Clears HP India in Misdeclaration Allegation on Laptop Imports

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has delivered a favorable verdict for HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a β‚Ή2.8 crore duty demand and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva, in a case involving alleged misdeclaration of imported laptops intended for after-sales warranty service.

    Background of the Dispute

    • HP India had imported 1113 laptop units of various models through Nhava Sheva port, declaring them as warranty support stock, intended exclusively for after-sales service and not for retail sale.
    • Customs authorities alleged misdeclaration of model numbers and invoked extended limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, claiming that the laptops were not eligible for concessional duty.
    • A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued demanding differential duty of β‚Ή2,80,21,293 along with interest and penalty 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 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 Ahmedabad Upholds Correct Classification of Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel under CTH 7210

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds Correct Classification of Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel under CTH 7210

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.06.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds Correct Classification of Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel under CTH 7210

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has ruled in favor of the appellant-importer, KLJ Polymers & Chemicals Limited, setting aside a reclassification attempt and differential duty demand initiated by the customs department. The dispute revolved around whether the imported productβ€”Pre-painted Galvanized Steel Sheetsβ€”should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7210 70, as declared by the importer, or under CTH 7225 99, as proposed by the department on grounds of alleged alloy content.

    Dispute Summary

    • Product: Colour-coated galvanized steel coils/sheets.
    • Declared Classification by Importer: CTH 7210 (covering flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, plated or coated).
    • Revenue’s Allegation: The product contains alloying elements (including boron), qualifying it under CTH 7225 for other alloy steel.

    The customs authorities alleged suppression of facts and misdeclaration by the importer and raised a demand of differential duty, invoking extended limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act.

    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 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 Delhi Clears Customs Broker of β‚Ή50 Lakh Penalty in Alleged IEC Misuse

    CESTAT Delhi Clears Customs Broker of β‚Ή50 Lakh Penalty in Alleged IEC Misuse

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Clears Customs Broker of β‚Ή50 Lakh Penalty in Alleged IEC Misuse

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s GND Cargo Movers, a licensed customs broker, for alleged violations related to the misuse of an Importer Exporter Code (IEC). The judgment, authored by Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and Ms. Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member), nullifies the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 31 May 2019, upholding the principles of procedural justice and statutory compliance under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Case Background

    • The customs broker was penalized β‚Ή50 lakhs under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly abetting appellant and others in misusing the IEC of M/s Trip Communications Pvt. Ltd. (TCPL).
    • The Department alleged that the broker knowingly facilitated the clearance of goods under a misrepresented IEC, violating Regulations 13(d) and (e) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

    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 Partly Allows BPL’s Appeal in Import Dispute

    CESTAT Bangalore Partly Allows BPL’s Appeal in Import Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.06.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Partly Allows BPL’s Appeal in Import Dispute

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, in a significant judgment dated 4th June 2025, delivered its final ruling in a long-standing legal battle involving M/s BPL Limited and the Commissioner of Customs. The central issue revolved around the misuse of customs duty exemption meant for implantable/internal-use defibrillators, whereas BPL Ltd allegedly imported components for external-use defibrillators, thereby wrongly availing exemption under Customs Notification Nos. 11/1997, 23/1998, and 20/1999.

    Case Summary:

    Three appeals were clubbed together:

    • C/355/2003: M/s BPL Ltd challenging the customs duty demand.
    • C/356/2003: Penalty appeal by General Manager of BPL Ltd.
    • C/21182/2017: Second round appeal against a related Order-in-Appeal dated 28.04.2017.

    BPL Ltd had imported relays, capacitors, and other components stating they would be used in the manufacture of implantable/internal-use DC defibrillators and pacemakers. These goods were exempt from customs duty under specific notifications. However, investigations revealed that the devices manufactured were primarily for external use and not eligible for exemption.

    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

  • CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Tariff Classification

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Tariff Classification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.06.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Upholds Importer’s Tariff Classification

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, allowed the appeal of M/s Motherson Bergstrom HVAC Solutions Pvt. Ltd., setting aside the customs demand raised on account of alleged misclassification of imported automotive air conditioning components. The Tribunal’s detailed decision reaffirms the primacy of Note 2(a) of Section XVI in tariff classification and reasserts settled jurisprudence that specific tariff headings under Chapters 84 and 85 prevail over general residual classifications.

    Background of the Case:

    The appellant, M/s Motherson Bergstrom, imported various parts and assemblies such as blowers, filters, water valve assemblies, thermostats, modules, and control panels, classifying them under individual tariff headings of Chapters 84, 85, and 90. The Customs department reclassified the goods under CTI 8415 90 00 (parts of air conditioners), demanded differential customs duty under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, and initiated reassessment proceedings.

    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

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 ↓