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 Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry​ ​ ​ Β 

    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), Mumbai, has set aside charges for late filing of a bill of entry against Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd. ​ The case, which revolved around procedural lapses in the customs clearance process, highlights the importance of accountability in the electronic customs system and the responsibilities of customs authorities. ​

    Case Background

    Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd, a Surat-based company, had imported 100% polyester filament yarn and filed an advance bill of entry (No. 6359527/06.01.2020) as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ However, due to an issue in the Indian Customs Electronic System (ICES), the advance bill of entry was not regularized, compelling the company to file a fresh bill of entry (No. ​ 7080859/02.03.2020). ​ This delay led to the imposition of late filing charges amounting to β‚Ή4,33,446. ​ The company challenged the charges, arguing that the delay was caused by a system error beyond their control. ​

    The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai – II, dismissed their appeal, prompting Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd to approach the CESTAT.

    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 Allahabad Dismisses Revenue Appeal Under CBIC Litigation Policy

    CESTAT Allahabad Dismisses Revenue Appeal Under CBIC Litigation Policy

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.09.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad Dismisses Revenue Appeal Under CBIC Litigation Policy​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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) Allahabad recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Noida vs. M/s Ganpati Overseas (Customs Appeal No. 70675 of 2019). This case highlights the evolving dynamics of litigation policy under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) and the importance of judicial discipline in resolving disputes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Noida, dated 11.06.2019. ​ The primary issue revolved around whether the appeal should be dismissed under CBIC’s litigation policy due to the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals before the CESTAT. ​ The CBIC’s Circular F.No. ​ 390/Misc./30/2023-JC, dated 02.11.2023, set a threshold of Rs. ​ 50 lakhs for appeals to be filed before 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 Chandigarh- Service Tax Refund Granted for Rice Export Under Agricultural Produce Exemption

    CESTAT Chandigarh- Service Tax Refund Granted for Rice Export Under Agricultural Produce Exemption

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.09.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh- Service Tax Refund Granted for Rice Export Under Agricultural Produce Exemption​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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), Chandigarh, has delivered a judgment in favor of M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd., Taraori, Karnal, Haryana, in the matter of Service Tax Appeal No. ​ 377 of 2011. ​ This case highlights the interpretation of the term “agricultural produce” and its implications for service tax exemptions under Notification No. ​ 13/2003-ST.

    Background of the Case ​

    M/s Bharat Industrial Enterprises Ltd. is engaged in the cultivation of paddy and the sale/export of rice obtained by de-husking paddy. ​ During the financial year 2007-08, the company paid service tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism for services availed from commission agents for export and domestic sales. Subsequently, they filed a refund claim of Rs. ​ 13,63,497/- on the grounds that the commission services were exempt from service tax under Notification No. ​ 13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. ​

    While the Original Authority granted the refund, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula, disallowed the claim through an Order-in-Revision dated 30.11.2010, directing the appellants to deposit the refunded amount along with interest at 13% per annum. ​ This led to the present appeal before the CESTAT.

    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 Hyderabad Sets Aside Confiscation of Imported Stainless Steel Scrap

    CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Confiscation of Imported Stainless Steel Scrap

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.09.2025

    CESTAT Hyderabad Sets Aside Confiscation of Imported Stainless Steel Scrap​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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), Hyderabad, has delivered justice to Jindal Stainless Ltd by setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. ​ This case highlights the importance of interpreting laws and policies in a practical and fair manner, especially when procedural challenges arise.

    Background of the Case

    Jindal Stainless Ltd, a leading steel manufacturer, imported 500.74 MT of stainless steel scrap of 304 grade from Turkey under two Bills of Entry dated December 3, 2014, and December 8, 2014. As per the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Handbook of Procedures, metallic waste and scrap in unshredded, compressed, and loose form can only be imported if accompanied by a pre-shipment inspection certificate issued by an authorized agency. ​ However, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) had not notified any agency in Turkey for such inspections. ​ Faced with this practical challenge, Jindal Stainless Ltd obtained the certificate from M/s Worldwide Inspection Services – SARL, Benin, an agency authorized by DGFT but not specifically for Turkey. ​

    Upon arrival at Visakhapatnam port, the imported scrap was examined by M/s Valueguru Chartered Engineers, Surveyors, Valuers, who issued a post-shipment inspection certificate confirming the goods were in order. ​ Despite this, the Principal Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 40,00,000, and levied a penalty of Rs. ​ 10,00,000 under Section 112(a).

    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 Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Customs Broker in Misclassification

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Customs Broker in Misclassification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.09.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Customs Broker in Misclassification​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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, has set aside penalties imposed on M/s PS Bedi & Co (P) Ltd., a Customs Broker, under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision, delivered on August 5, 2025, highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the role of Customs Brokers in import transactions. The case revolved around alleged misclassification of imported goods, leading to penalties imposed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s PS Bedi & Co (P) Ltd., was penalized for filing Bills of Entry for AMR/Non-AMR Water Flow Meters imported by M/s SPML India Ltd. from Israel. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the goods were misclassified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9026 10 10 instead of CTI 9028 20 00, resulting in revenue loss. Despite having Certificates of Origin indicating CTI 9028, the Customs Broker filed the Bills of Entry based on the import documents provided by the importer. ​

    A show cause notice was issued, accusing the Customs Broker of deliberate misclassification and suppression of material facts, making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. ​ Penalties were imposed under Sections 112(a)(ii) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

    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 Rules in Favor of M/s Zibal Exim: Classification and Valuation of Imported Black Sand Upheld

    CESTAT Chennai Rules in Favor of M/s Zibal Exim: Classification and Valuation of Imported Black Sand Upheld

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rules in Favor of M/s Zibal Exim: Classification and Valuation of Imported Black Sand Upheld​ ​ ​ ​

    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.

    Introduction:

    This case pertains to Customs Appeal No. 42037 of 2015 filed by M/s Zibal Exim against the Order-in-Appeal No. 118/2014-TTN(CUS) dated 14.10.2014, which upheld the Order-in-Original No. 40/2013 dated 07.11.2013. The dispute arose over the classification, valuation, and eligibility for concessional duty of 106 tons of “Black Sand” imported by the appellant from Sierra Leone.

    The Customs Department classified the goods as Quartz Sand under CTH 2505 1020, denied the concessional duty under Notification No. 12/2012, enhanced the value of the goods, and imposed fines and penalties. The appellant contested these findings, asserting that the goods were Rutile-bearing sand and should be classified under CTH 2614 0090 as Titanium Ore.

    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 Bangalore- ATM Monitors Classifiable as Parts Under CTH 8473

    CESTAT Bangalore- ATM Monitors Classifiable as Parts Under CTH 8473

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.09.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore- ATM Monitors Classifiable as Parts Under CTH 8473​ ​

    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 decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, the appeal filed by M/s NCR Corporation India Pvt. ​ Ltd. was allowed, setting aside the earlier classification of ATM monitors under CTH 8528. ​ This ruling reaffirms the importance of accurate classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, ensuring compliance with established legal precedents. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when NCR Corporation imported monitors intended for use in Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs) and declared them as LCD assemblies for ATMs under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8473, which covers parts and accessories of machines classified under CTH 8472. ​ However, the revenue authorities argued that these monitors should be classified under CTH 8528, which pertains to monitors and projectors not incorporating television reception apparatus. ​

    Aggrieved by the revenue’s decision, NCR Corporation filed an appeal before the CESTAT, citing legal precedents and technical grounds to support their claim.

    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 Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has ruled in favor of M/s. Float Glass Centre, a regular importer of Clear Float Glass (CFG), in a case concerning the classification of imported goods and the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 2, 2025, sets a significant precedent for importers navigating complex classification disputes and exemption claims.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Float Glass Centre, based in Chennai, imports Clear Float Glass with an absorbent layer, which they classify under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7005 1090. ​ This classification entitles them to a β€˜NIL’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Sl. ​ No. 934 of Notification No. ​ 46/2011-Cus, provided the goods are imported from ASEAN countries. ​ However, the Assessing Officer denied this classification, citing discrepancies in the Country-of-Origin certificate, which mentioned a different CTH (7005 2990). ​ Consequently, the appellant filed bills of entry under protest and challenged the denial of exemption benefits before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who rejected their claims. This led to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

    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 Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable

    CESTAT Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable​ ​

    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 set aside the demand for differential duty, redemption fine, and penalty against M/s. ​ Thales India Private Limited. ​ The case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the implications of procedural lapses in customs adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose when Thales India imported “Digital Axle Counter,” a safety and traffic control equipment for railways, under Customs Tariff Entry No. ​ 8608 0030, attracting IGST at 5%. ​ However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) later contended that the correct classification was under Customs Tariff Entry No. ​ 8530 1010, which attracts IGST at 28%. ​ This reclassification led to a demand for differential duty amounting to Rs. ​ 84,75,878/-, along with a redemption fine of Rs. ​ 85,00,000/- and a penalty equivalent to the duty payable. ​

    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- JNPT was not liable to pay service tax on royalty charges collected under BOT agreements

    CESTAT Mumbai- JNPT was not liable to pay service tax on royalty charges collected under BOT agreements

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- JNPT was not liable to pay service tax on royalty charges collected under BOT agreements​

     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), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) in a long-standing dispute over the applicability of service tax on royalty charges collected under Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreements. This decision, delivered on August 14, 2025, sets a precedent for similar cases in the port sector and reinforces the legal position that royalty charges under such agreements do not constitute taxable services.

    Background of the Case

    The appellants, Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT), had entered into BOT agreements with private entities such as Nhava Sheva International Container Terminal (NSICT) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) for the development and operation of container and liquid cargo terminals. ​ Under these agreements, the private operators paid royalty charges to JNPT based on metrics like TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit) or Metric Tonne of cargo handled. The jurisdictional service tax authorities contended that these royalty charges fell under the category of “Port Services” and were subject to service tax. ​ Consequently, 16 show-cause notices were issued for the period between July 2001 and March 2010, demanding service tax and penalties.

    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