Tag: #Acts

  • CESTAT New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    CESTAT New Delhi- The reassessment was held to be invalid and legally unsustainable

    Date: 03.05.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, ruled in favour of M/s Trina Steelcarb Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a reassessment order that enhanced the assessable value of imported goods without issuing a speaking order as mandated under Section 17(5) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    1. Violation of Section 17(5): The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to issue a speaking order despite the reassessment being contrary to the importer’s declared self-assessment and without written acceptance. Section 17(5) mandates issuance of a speaking order within 15 days in such cases.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Kolkata emphasized that minor administrative errors without dishonest intent should not result in penal consequences

    CESTAT Kolkata emphasized that minor administrative errors without dishonest intent should not result in penal consequences

    Date: 28.04.2025

    The Eastern Zonal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, delivered an important ruling on 17th April 2025, dismissing an appeal filed by the Revenue against M/s. Nalini Bandhu Ray & Sons, a licensed Customs Broker.

    • M/s. Nalini Bandhu Ray & Sons filed a Bill of Entry for the importer M/s Lalwani Ferro Alloys based on instructions and documentation provided by their client.
    • Later, it emerged that the consignee name had been changed by the overseas supplier to M/s QVC International Pvt. Ltd., but this change was not communicated to the Customs Broker.
    • The Revenue alleged a violation of Regulation 10(e) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 for failing to exercise due diligence.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    Date: 28.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Hyderabad, in Final Order Nos. A/30134-30135/2025 dated 24th April 2025, delivered a significant ruling favoring M/s Shabeer Enterprises concerning refund of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid on re-exported goods.

    • M/s Shabeer Enterprises imported 18.030 metric tons of Sri Lankan Areca Nuts through Krishnapatnam Port.
    • The goods failed quality standards under the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulation, 2011, leading to a re-export order dated 30.09.2021.
    • IGST of Rs.2,82,808/- was paid on 31.03.2021.
    • The appellant filed a refund application for the IGST amount on 12.04.2022.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    Date: 28.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Allahabad, in its Final Order Nos. 70205-70210/2025 dated 24th April 2025, allowed multiple appeals against the confiscation of nearly 4 kilograms of gold and penalties imposed by the Commissioner, Customs (Preventive), Lucknow.

    • Gold weighing 3998.83 grams valued at approximately Rs. 2.12 crore was seized from two individuals traveling by bus from Gorakhpur to Delhi.
    • The seizure was made on a “reasonable belief” of smuggling under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    • Penalties were imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 against six individuals including employees of M/s Bajrang Bullion Traders.

    Handy Download:

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds DFIA Exemption on Lithium-Ion Battery Imports

    Date: 21.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Hyderabad Bench – Court No. I has dismissed the Department’s appeal and upheld the exemption granted to M/s Olectra Greentech Ltd. for import of Lithium-ion batteries under a Transferable DFIA (Duty-Free Import Authorisation) scheme.

    • Olectra Greentech imported lithium-ion cells under a DFIA license issued against exports of Agricultural Tractors.
    • The customs department denied the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/2023-Cus dated 01.04.2023, stating that lithium-ion batteries do not match the export input description of “automotive batteries.”
    • The Commissioner (Appeals) had earlier ruled in favor of Olectra, prompting a departmental appeal.

    Handy Reader for Download:

  • CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    CESTAT Bangalore set aside the re-determined valuation

    Date: 21.04.2025

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore Bench, has ruled in favor of M/s Saash Enterprises, setting aside a customs order that had rejected the declared transaction value of imported laminators, binding machines, and related equipment. The Tribunal quashed the re-determined valuation, confiscation, penalty, and fine imposed by the lower authorities.

    • The case involved Bill of Entry No. 8730452 dated 11.12.2012 for goods including laminators, wire binding machines, and paper cutters.
    • Although the physical description and quantity of the goods matched the import documentation, the customs authorities questioned the declared value and engaged a Chartered Engineer, who estimated a value of USD 69,021 against the declared USD 55,142.06.
    • Based on this, customs re-valued the consignment to β‚Ή46.43 lakhs (from β‚Ή30.96 lakhs) and imposed:
      • Redemption fine of β‚Ή5,00,000
      • Penalty of β‚Ή2,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962

    Handy Reader for Download:

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

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Classification of Aluminium Composite Circles Under CTH 7606

    Date: 19.4.2025

    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.

    • 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.

    Handy Reader for Download:

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

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejected Customs attempt to apply two different transaction values

    Date: 18.04.2025

    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.

    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.

    Handy Reader for Download:

  • 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

    Date: 18.4.2025

    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.

    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.