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)

Tag: #cbic

  • CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Upholds IGST Refund Claim Despite Delay

    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.

    Case Background:

    • 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.

    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 Hyderabad

    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 Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.04.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Quashes Gold Confiscation Orders of Customs

    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.

    Key Background:

    • 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.

    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 idΒ intelconsul@gmail.comΒ or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    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 Rejects Customs Value Enhancement Based on NIDB Data

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejects Customs Value Enhancement Based on NIDB Data

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.04.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rejects Customs Value Enhancement Based on NIDB Data

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the enhancement of import values based on National Import Database (NIDB) data.

    Background:

    M/s Radha Engineering Company imported “LED/NON-LED Christmas Lights” and “LED Strip Light/LED Rope Light,” declaring specific transaction values. Following an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), the Revenue alleged undervaluation and enhanced the declared import values based on NIDB data.

    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 Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.04.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Held that value cannot be re-determined on weight when units price were declared and invoiced

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad – Court No. 3, has allowed two appeals filed by ISGEC Heavy Engineering Ltd., setting aside penalties and redemption fine imposed by customs authorities on the grounds of alleged misdeclaration of weight in multiple Bills of Entry.

    Case Overview:

    • The case pertained to import of engineering components including:
      • Carbon Steel Forged Hemi (ASME SA266 GR2)
      • Proof Machined Low Alloy Steel Spool
      • Test Plates
    • Customs claimed excess weight in three shipments totaling over 13.37 MTS more than declared.
    • Alleged misdeclaration valued at approx. β‚Ή31.45 lakhs with total differential duty of approx. β‚Ή9.48 lakhs.

    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 Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 23.04.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai No provision under Customs Act, 1962 empowers officers to collect interest in the absence of duty

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai Bench has allowed the appeal of M/s Lotus Herbals Color Cosmetics, ordering the refund of β‚Ή1,02,818, which was collected as interest without legal authority during EPCG import clearance.

    Case Overview:

    • The appellant imported a filling machine and parts under Bill of Entry No. 7362042 dated 27.03.2020 at JNPT, Nhava Sheva.
    • At the time of filing, they did not possess an EPCG authorisation, which was later issued on 03.06.2020.
    • Due to the COVID-19 lockdown, the EPCG licence was submitted after some delay.
    • Customs officers allegedly verbally demanded payment of interest for the intervening period.
    • The appellant paid β‚Ή1,02,818 as interest vide challan dated 25.06.2020, and the goods were cleared at nil customs duty under Notification No. 16/2015-Cus.

    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 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 Quashes Customs Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Adjudication

    CESTAT New Delhi Quashes Customs Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Adjudication

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.04.2025

    CESTAT New Delhi Quashes Customs Order Due to Inordinate Delay in Adjudication

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi Principal Bench, has set aside a 2023 customs adjudication order issued against Innovale Investment Pte Ltd, ruling that the inordinate delay of nearly 10 years in adjudicating a show cause notice rendered the proceedings unsustainable in law.

    Case Overview:

    • The dispute pertained to the import of an Embraer Phenom 100 aircraft under Bill of Entry No. 269117 dated 24.06.2011.
    • The aircraft was provisionally released against a bond and bank guarantee of β‚Ή4.10 crore.
    • Customs authorities alleged misuse of exemption under Notification No. 01/2002-Cus as amended by Notification 01/2011-Cus, and issued a show cause notice on 31.07.2013.
    • On 19.01.2023, the Principal Commissioner of Customs ordered:
      • Confiscation of the aircraft under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act.
      • Redemption fine of β‚Ή1 crore under Section 125.
      • Penalty of β‚Ή25 lakh under Section 112(a).

    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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Declares Customs Broker Suspension Appeals Infructuous Following High Court Quashing

    CESTAT Chennai Declares Customs Broker Suspension Appeals Infructuous Following High Court Quashing

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.04.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Declares Customs Broker Suspension Appeals Infructuous Following High Court Quashing

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench – Court No. I disposed of two appeals filed by M/s HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd. related to the suspension and continued suspension of its Customs Broker Licence (No. R-308/CHA), declaring them infructuous in light of a prior Madras High Court order that had already quashed the impugned orders.

    Case Background:

    • HSN Shipping Pvt. Ltd. was a licensed customs broker under CBLR, 2013, holding valid licence No. R-308/2014.
    • The company handled clearance of a consignment imported by M/s R.S. Enterprises under Bill of Entry No. 6102740 dated 15.07.2014.
    • Allegations were made that the broker forged an β€œopen chit” document at the CFS and improperly obtained signatures, leading to an order of suspension on 09.06.2015 and a subsequent Order-in-Original dated 02.07.2015 continuing the suspension under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR, 2013.

    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 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 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