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 Kolkata rejects the Revenue’s appeal and upholds the release of detained goods​

    CESTAT Kolkata rejects the Revenue’s appeal and upholds the release of detained goods​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.09.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata rejects the Revenue’s appeal and upholds the release of detained 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 ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) to release detained goods on payment of applicable duty. ​ This case, involving M/s. Amit Fashions and the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Port), highlights critical aspects of customs law, including the distinction between detention and seizure, provisional release, and the adjudication process for mis-declared goods.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Amit Fashions, an importer of knitted fabric, filed a self-assessed bill of entry for a consignment of 100% polyester knitted fabric imported from China. ​ Upon examination, the goods were found to be woven fabric instead of knitted fabric, leading to allegations of mis-declaration. ​ The goods were detained, and subsequent investigations resulted in a provisional release order requiring a bond and bank guarantee. ​ Dissatisfied with the conditions imposed, the importer appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who modified the order and allowed the release of goods on payment of applicable duty.

    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 Kolkata Rules Quicklime Classifiable under CTH 2522

    CESTAT Kolkata Rules Quicklime Classifiable under CTH 2522

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rules Quicklime Classifiable under CTH 2522​ ​

    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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has delivered its verdict in favor of ITC Ltd. in a dispute concerning the classification of imported “Quicklime.” The decision, issued on August 28, 2025, brings clarity to the classification of Quicklime under the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, and sets a precedent for similar cases.

    Background of the Case

    ITC Ltd. had imported goods described as “PCC Lime 0/20MM (Quicklime) (Pulp Conversion Chemical)” and sought to classify them under Customs Tariff Item No. ​ 2522 1000, which pertains to Quicklime. ​ However, the assessing officer classified the goods under Customs Tariff Item No. ​ 2825 9090, citing the chemical composition and purity of the product. This classification was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), prompting ITC Ltd. to appeal the decision before the CESTAT.

    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 Bangalore Clarifies that physical verification of the exporter’s premises is not mandatory​

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies that physical verification of the exporter’s premises is not mandatory​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.08.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Clarifies that physical verification of the exporter’s premises is not mandatory​ ​ ​ ​ ​

     

    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), Bangalore, has set aside a penalty of Rs. ​ 50,000 imposed on M/s. ​ Chakiat Agencies, a Customs Broker, under Regulation 18 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2013. ​ This decision, delivered on August 28, 2025, highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the interpretation of regulatory requirements in the customs brokerage industry.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Chakiat Agencies, a Customs Broker licensed by the Custom House, Chennai, was issued a show-cause notice alleging non-compliance with Regulations 11(a), 11(n), and 17(9) of CBLR, 2013. ​ The allegations stemmed from their handling of shipping bills for M/s. ​ Logo Trading through ICD, Bangalore. ​ The primary contention was that the broker failed to physically verify the existence of the exporter at the declared premises, which was deemed a violation of Regulation 11(n). ​ Consequently, the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin, imposed a penalty of Rs. ​ 50,000 under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO Document Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai Accepts Declared Value and Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty for LED Screen Imports

    CESTAT Chennai Accepts Declared Value and Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty for LED Screen Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Accepts Declared Value and Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalty for LED Screen 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.

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has delivered justice to M/s. Sureshkanna Video & Photo, a Chennai-based importer, by setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II). ​ This case highlights the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements under the Customs Valuation Rules.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Sureshkanna Video & Photo imported LED screen components from China, declaring a value of Rs. ​ 19,59,313/- (US $42,441). ​ However, based on intelligence, the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of the goods. ​ During a search of the proprietor’s premises, an unsigned draft contract was retrieved, which the authorities relied upon to reject the declared value and re-determine it at Rs. ​ 32,75,596/-. The goods were confiscated, and penalties were imposed under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The appellant challenged the findings, arguing that the unsigned contract was merely a draft and not the actual sales contract. ​ Despite repeated requests, the appellant was denied access to the unsigned contract and the opportunity for cross-examination, raising serious concerns about the violation of natural justice.

    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 Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    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, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has delivered justice to M/s. ​ Daga Shipping Agents Pvt. ​ Ltd., a Customs Broker, by setting aside the penalty of Rs. ​ 3,00,000/- imposed under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision marks a crucial moment for Customs Brokers across the country, emphasizing the importance of due diligence and bona fide actions in their professional duties.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around the export of 37,500 capacitors by M/s Poonam Export, facilitated by M/s. ​ Daga Shipping Agents Pvt. ​ Ltd. The consignment was detained by the Special Investigation Branch (SIB) on allegations of overvaluation. ​ Subsequently, summons issued to the exporter revealed discrepancies in the address provided, leading to a Show Cause Notice against the Customs Broker for allegedly failing to verify the exporter’s credentials adequately. ​

    Despite the appellant providing all necessary documents, including KYC, Aadhaar, PAN, IT returns, GST certificates, and bank letters, the Revenue alleged non-compliance with Regulation 10 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. ​ This resulted in the imposition of a penalty of Rs. ​ 3,00,000/- under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    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- DRI and Commissioner of Customs cannot declare DEPB scrips issued by DGFT as null and void

    CESTAT Delhi- DRI and Commissioner of Customs cannot declare DEPB scrips issued by DGFT as null and void

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 28.08.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- DRI and Commissioner of Customs cannot declare DEPB scrips issued by DGFT as null and void​ ​ ​ ​ ​

     

    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 and duty demands imposed on 21 appellants, including importers, bank officials, and a chartered accountant, in a case involving Duty Entitlement Passbook (DEPB) scrips. ​ This judgment highlights critical legal principles and clarifies the scope of authority under the Customs Act, Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, and FEMA regulations.

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated investigations against exporters accused of misusing export promotion schemes, such as DEPB and drawback, by filing false declarations. ​ The DEPB scrips, issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), were allegedly obtained fraudulently and later sold to importers who used them to import goods. ​ The DRI concluded that these scrips were ab initio null and void, leading to demands for customs duty and penalties on importers, bank officials, and a chartered accountant.

    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 Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Yazaki India Private Limited, granting a refund of Rs. 5,35,010/- paid twice as customs duty for the same import transaction. ​ This decision highlights the importance of fairness in tax administration and reinforces the principle that the government cannot unjustly retain amounts paid due to inadvertent errors. ​

    Background of the Case ​

    Yazaki India, a Pune-based company, imported insulating fittings under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 8547 through the Nhava Sheva port in December 2018. ​ The company paid customs duty of Rs. ​ 5,35,010/- on 29.12.2018 for two Bills of Entry (B/E No. ​ 9449124 and B/E No. ​ 9454113). ​ However, due to an inadvertent error, the same amount was paid again on 31.12.2018. ​ Upon realizing the mistake, Yazaki India filed a refund claim on 14.01.2020, seeking reimbursement of the duplicate payment. ​ The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the refund claim, citing that it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Aggrieved by this decision, Yazaki India approached the Tribunal.

    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 Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​

    CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Sets Aside Penalty Under Section 117​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, has set aside a penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, on M/s. ​ Nippon Express (India) Private Limited. ​ This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the scope of show-cause notices in adjudication proceedings. ​

    Case Overview

    The case arose from an appeal filed by M/s. Nippon Express (India) Private Limited against the imposition of a penalty of Rs. ​ 2,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The penalty was imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, through Order-in-Appeal No. ​ 791/2022 dated 23.03.2022. ​ The appellant contended that the penalty was imposed without prior notice or an opportunity to contest the proposal, violating the principles of natural justice. ​

    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 Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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 M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL) in a long-standing dispute over provisional refunds and interest liability. ​ The case revolved around the refund of excise duty under area-based exemption notifications and the subsequent demand for interest on provisional refunds sanctioned to the company. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases and highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. ​

    Background of the Case

    GCPL had set up manufacturing units in Assam and was availing 100% refund of duty paid under Notification No. ​ 20/2007-CE. However, an amendment via Notification No. 20/2008-CE restricted the refund to 34% of the total duty paid, with an option for manufacturers to apply for special value addition rates. ​ GCPL challenged the amended notification before the Gauhati High Court, which initially struck it down. ​ The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the validity of the amended notification. ​

    During the litigation, GCPL was granted provisional refunds amounting to Rs. ​ 24,00,07,627/- based on interim orders from the Gauhati High Court and Supreme Court. ​ After the Supreme Court’s final decision, the Department adjusted these refunds against the amounts determined under special value addition rates, leaving a net excess refund of Rs. ​ 50,96,571/-.

    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 Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Quashes β‚Ή14.95 Lakh Late Fee on Delay in Filling Bill of Entry​ ​ ​ ​

    In a recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, the imposition of a late fee of Rs. 14,95,000 under Section 46(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, was set aside. This case, involving M/s. ​ ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. ​ Ltd., highlights the importance of considering the circumstances leading to delays in filing Bills of Entry and the need for judicious application of late fees. ​

    Case Background

    The dispute arose when M/s. ​ Vazhavilla Cashews, Kollam, the original importer, failed to clear a consignment of dried raw cashew nuts. ​ The goods were subsequently sold on a high-seas basis to M/s. ​ Ambalakkara Cashews, who filed a Bill of Entry on 12.08.2017. ​ However, due to financial issues, the shipper recalled the original documents and identified M/s. ECOM Gill Coffee Trading Pvt. ​ Ltd. as the new buyer.

    The procedural delays began when the new buyer applied for an amendment to the Import General Manifest (IGM) on 03.11.2017. ​ The amendment was approved on 12.12.2017, and the earlier Bill of Entry was canceled on 09.01.2018. ​ The new Bill of Entry was filed promptly on 12.01.2018. ​ Despite these efforts, the Customs Department imposed a late fee, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). ​ This led the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

    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