ALS

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

Tag: #CESTAT

  • CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Customs Valuation of Imported Software

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Customs Valuation of Imported Software

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Ruled on Customs Valuation of Imported Software

    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 judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), New Delhi, has delivered a landmark decision in favor of HCL Technologies Ltd. and SAP India Pvt. Ltd., setting aside penalties and customs duty demands imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Delhi. This case, which revolved around the valuation of imported software CDs and the inclusion of license fees in their transaction value, has far-reaching implications for the IT and software industry. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when HCL Technologies imported CDs containing SAP software from SAP Germany, facilitated by SAP India. ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the declared transaction value of the CDs was understated and sought to include the license fees paid by HCL to SAP India in the valuation of the CDs under Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988. ​ Penalties were also imposed on both HCL and SAP India under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    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 Delhi clarified the distinction between stock transfers and inter-State sales

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the distinction between stock transfers and inter-State sales

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi clarified the distinction between stock transfers and inter-State sales

    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 Central Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal recently delivered a significant judgment in favor of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. (SAIL) regarding the classification of transactions as stock transfers versus inter-State sales. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 26, 2025, has far-reaching implications for businesses operating across multiple states in India, particularly those in manufacturing and distribution.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute revolved around the movement of goods from SAIL’s Rourkela Steel Plant in Odisha to its branches in other states during the assessment years 1989-1990, 1991-1992, 1992-1993, and 1993-1994. ​ The Odisha Sales Tax Tribunal had earlier classified these transactions as inter-State sales under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax (CST) Act, thereby subjecting them to central sales tax. ​ SAIL contended that these were mere stock transfers to its branches, not sales, and therefore not liable for CST. ​

    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 Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands and Penalties in Plywood Undervaluation Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands and Penalties in Plywood Undervaluation Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Customs Duty Demands and Penalties in Plywood Undervaluation Dispute

    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), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that provides relief to several plywood importers accused of undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods. The case involved M/s. ​ Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. ​ Ltd., M/s. Ellena Impex OPC Pvt. ​ Ltd., M/s. Sun Ply Pvt. ​ Ltd., and M/s. Radheysham Co., who challenged the findings of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. ​ The Tribunal’s decision has set a precedent for the admissibility of evidence and the procedural requirements in customs valuation disputes.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants were accused of undervaluing imported plywood from China, leading to alleged evasion of customs duties. ​ The investigation by the DRI relied heavily on 19 proforma invoices recovered from the mobile phone of Director of M/s. ​ Vivek Ply & Veneers Pvt. ​ Ltd. These invoices were used to claim that the appellants had misdeclared the value and description of their imports. ​ The Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed differential duty demands, imposed penalties, and ordered confiscation of goods.

    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 Delhi- Mushroom Cultivation Equipment Classified as Agricultural Machinery

    CESTAT Delhi- Mushroom Cultivation Equipment Classified as Agricultural Machinery

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Mushroom Cultivation Equipment Classified as Agricultural Machinery

    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), New Delhi, recently addressed a dispute concerning the classification of imported goods used in mushroom cultivation. ​ The case revolved around whether the imported aluminium shelving, floor drain, and automatic watering system for mushroom growing should be classified under a tariff heading for agricultural machinery or as generic aluminium structures. ​ This decision has far-reaching implications for agricultural businesses and importers of specialized equipment.

    The Case Overview

    The appellant, M/s. Welkin Foods, imported aluminium shelving, floor drains, and automatic watering systems specifically designed for mushroom cultivation. ​ They classified these goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 84369900, which pertains to agricultural machinery, claiming a β€˜nil rate of duty.’ However, the Customs Department argued that the shelving should be classified under CTH 76109010, which covers generic aluminium structures and attracts higher duties. ​

    The department alleged misclassification, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. ​ 21,01,983 in duty payments. ​ The appellant contested this claim, leading to a legal battle that culminated in the Tribunal’s decision.

    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 SAD Refund Claim of Importer

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds SAD Refund Claim of Importer

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.09.2025

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Upholds SAD Refund Claim of Importer

    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), West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Sanjay Furniture Palace vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 23, 2025, has clarified the applicability of Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus dated September 14, 2007, which grants exemption from Special Additional Duty (SAD) on goods imported for subsequent sale. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellants, Sanjay Furniture Palace and its authorized signatory, had filed refund claims under Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus for the 4% SAD paid on imported timber. ​ The refund claims were initially sanctioned but later investigated by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), which alleged that the appellants had submitted forged invoices and failed to correlate the sales invoices with the Bills of Entry. ​ The Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) denied the refund claims, citing discrepancies in the documentation and alleged fabrication of invoices.

    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 Kolkata Overturns License Revocation

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns License Revocation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns License Revocation

    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 delivered justice to M/s. Auro Logistix, a Customs Broker (CB), by setting aside the revocation of their license, forfeiture of pre-deposit, and imposition of penalties. This decision, pronounced on September 26, 2025, marks a significant moment for Customs Brokers across the country, reinforcing the importance of due process and fair adjudication.

    Background of the Case

    The appeals filed by M/s. Auro Logistix stemmed from two separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC), Kolkata. ​ These orders alleged violations of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018, and accused the CB of failing to perform due diligence in facilitating export consignments for two exportersβ€”M/s. ​ K.S. Impex and M/s. ​ Ankraj Developers Pvt. ​ Ltd. The allegations primarily revolved around overvaluation of export goods, misuse of GST input tax credit (ITC), and procedural lapses. ​

    The Commissioner had revoked the CB license, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed penalties of Rs. ​ 50,000 in each case. ​ However, M/s. Auro Logistix challenged these orders, asserting that they had complied with all regulations and were not responsible for the alleged violations committed by the exporters.

    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 Allahabad Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty on Dry Dates

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty on Dry Dates

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty on Dry Dates

    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 judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has ruled in favor of M/s Nitin Trading Company, Lucknow, in a case involving the alleged illegal import of 2100 kg of Dry Dates. ​ The Tribunal has set aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962, bringing relief to the appellant.

    Background of the Case ​

    The case originated from a search conducted by Customs (Preventive) Commissionerate, Lucknow, at the premises of M/s Chandra Cold Storage on November 18, 2019. ​ During the search, 42 bags of Dry Dates weighing 2100 kg were found and detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The goods were suspected to be of foreign origin and allegedly imported illegally, leading to their seizure and subsequent issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing confiscation and penalties.

    The Order-in-Original dated November 18, 2021, confirmed the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties on multiple parties, including M/s Nitin Trading Company. The appellant challenged this decision before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the original order. ​ Dissatisfied, M/s Nitin Trading Company approached the Tribunal.

    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 Chennai Upholds Interest on Delayed SAD Refunds

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Interest on Delayed SAD Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Upholds Interest on Delayed SAD Refunds

    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), Chennai, has dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Commissionerate-IV, against M/s HLG Trading. ​ This decision reinforces the entitlement of importers to interest on delayed refunds under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962, even in cases governed by exemption notifications like Notification No. ​ 102/2007-Cus.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when M/s HLG Trading sought refunds of additional duty of customs under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, along with interest for the delay in processing the refunds. ​ While the refund amounts were sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds), the claim for interest was rejected, citing that the refund scheme under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was not governed by Section 27 or Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    Aggrieved by this rejection, M/s HLG Trading approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who ruled in their favor, directing the lower adjudicating authority to calculate and sanction interest. The Department, dissatisfied with this decision, escalated the matter to CESTAT Chennai.

    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 Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals concerning the classification and treatment of goods imported under the “Project Imports” category. This decision, pronounced on September 19, 2025, sheds light on the complexities surrounding the Customs Act, 1962, and the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, while addressing the rights and obligations of importers and customs authorities.

    Background of the Case

    The appeals were filed by M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd, M/s Aravali Power Company Pvt Ltd, and individuals associated with these entities. ​ The dispute revolved around the import of five piling rigs valued at β‚Ή10,98,98,857 for the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project in Jhajjar, a mega power project. ​ The applicable customs duty of β‚Ή3,27,47,724 was exempted under a notification, as the goods were classified under heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which pertains to “Project Imports.” ​

    After completing the project, the rigs were redeployed to another mega power project. ​ Customs authorities initiated proceedings, alleging that the exemption was specific to the original project and that the transfer breached conditions outlined in a circular. ​ Consequently, they demanded recovery of the exempted duty, imposed penalties, and confiscated the rigs, allowing redemption upon payment of β‚Ή2,00,00,000.

    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- Drawback Cannot Be Denied on Exported Goods

    CESTAT Delhi- Drawback Cannot Be Denied on Exported Goods

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Drawback Cannot Be Denied on Exported 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 judgment, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered its final order on September 23, 2025, in the case of M/s Simran Exports vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export). The decision, which has far-reaching implications for exporters and customs authorities, addressed key issues related to the recovery of duty drawback, confiscation of exported goods, and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s Simran Exports, an exporter of garments, had declared an FOB value of β‚Ή1,06,84,417 for their consignments and claimed duty drawback accordingly. ​ However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the goods were over-invoiced to claim ineligible drawbacks. ​ Following investigations, the Additional Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original (OIO) in 2017, confiscating the goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act, ordering recovery of the drawback, and imposing penalties under Sections 114 and 114AA. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order in 2019, prompting M/s Simran Exports to approach 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