𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #CESTAT

CESTAT Chandigarh Allows Provisional Release of Allegedly Prohibited Goods
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.04.2026

CESTAT Chandigarh Allows Provisional Release of Allegedly Prohibited Goods

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The case of M/s Global Copier System vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, heard by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh, revolves around the seizure and classification of imported second-hand multifunctional printing machines. This legal dispute highlights the complexities of Indian customs and trade laws, particularly concerning import restrictions, compliance requirements, and the provisional release of seized goods.

Background of the Case

M/s Global Copier System, the appellant-importer, filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ludhiana, which upheld the rejection of their request for the provisional release of 230 second-hand Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE) Digital Multi-Function Print and Copying Machines. These machines were valued at Rs. 40,17,969 and classified under CTE 84333100.

The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of these goods on July 29, 2025. However, during the examination, it was found that the appellant lacked the necessary import authorization from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and registration with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). A Chartered Engineer’s report concluded that the imported goods were multifunctional devices and not HSE, leading to their seizure on August 14, 2025, under the belief that they were liable for confiscation.

Key Arguments by the Appellant

The appellant, represented by legal counsel, presented the following arguments:
1. Exemption from BIS Registration: The appellant argued that the CRO 2012 exempts HSE from BIS registration requirements, and the imported goods should qualify for this exemption.
2. Freely Importable Goods: According to the ITC HS classification, the imported goods are categorized as “freely importable,” and no notification explicitly prohibits their import.
3. Foreign Chartered Engineer’s Certification: The foreign Chartered Engineer had classified and valued the goods at the time of export, and the local Chartered Engineer did not provide sufficient reasons to refute this classification.
4. Precedents Supporting Provisional Release: The appellant cited multiple cases where courts had allowed provisional release of goods under similar circumstances, emphasizing that provisional release is permissible even for goods deemed prohibited.
5. Legal Provisions: Section 110A of the Customs Act allows for the provisional release of seized goods, and the impugned order failed to provide evidence of fraud or concealment by the appellant.
Key Arguments by the Respondent

The Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, represented by the Authorized Representative, countered the appellant’s claims with the following points:
1. Non-Compliance with Import Regulations: The appellant failed to obtain the required DGFT authorization and BIS registration, rendering the goods prohibited under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act.
2. Exemption Not Applicable: The exemption under S.O. 2844 (E) applies only to HSE, and the local Chartered Engineer’s report confirmed that the imported goods were multifunctional devices, not HSE.
3. Legal Precedents: The respondent argued that the cases cited by the appellant were not applicable due to differences in facts and circumstances.
CESTAT’s Observations and Final Order

After hearing both sides, the tribunal made the following observations:
1. Provisional Release Under Section 110A: The tribunal emphasized that Section 110A of the Customs Act allows for the provisional release of seized goods, irrespective of whether they are deemed prohibited.
2. Adjudication Required for Prohibition: The tribunal noted that the categorization of goods as prohibited is subject to adjudication, and the mere act of seizure does not establish the goods as prohibited.
3. Precedents Supporting Provisional Release: The tribunal referred to various judgments, including those by the High Courts of Delhi, Madras, and Telangana, which upheld the right to provisional release under similar circumstances.
4. Conditions for Provisional Release: The tribunal concluded that the impugned goods could be released provisionally, subject to the following conditions:
  - Payment of applicable duty on the imported goods.
  - Submission of a bond equivalent to the value of the imported goods.
  - Submission of a bank guarantee equivalent to 30% of the applicable duty.
Conclusion

The case of M/s Global Copier System vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, underscores the importance of adhering to import regulations while also highlighting the legal provisions for provisional release of seized goods.

The tribunal’s decision to allow provisional release, subject to specific conditions, reflects a balanced approach that considers both compliance with trade laws and the rights of importers. This case serves as a significant precedent for similar disputes in the future, emphasizing the need for clear adjudication before categorizing goods as prohibited.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Chandigarh

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 14, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Holds Marketing & Sponsorship Expenses Not Includible in Assessable Value
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.04.2026

CESTAT Delhi Holds Marketing & Sponsorship Expenses Not Includible in Assessable Value

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Indo Rubber and Plastic Works versus the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. This case revolved around the valuation of imported sports goods branded as ‘Li Ning’ and the inclusion of marketing and promotional expenses in the customs valuation.

Background of the Case

M/s Indo Rubber and Plastic Works, a proprietary concern, is engaged in manufacturing sports goods under its own brand name, ‘Vicky,’ and importing and distributing ‘Li Ning’ branded sports goods from M/s Sunlight Sports Pte. Ltd., Singapore. The appellant entered into a distribution agreement with Sunlight Sports on January 1, 2010, which included provisions for marketing, advertising, and promotion of ‘Li Ning’ products within India.

Under Article 7 of the agreement, the appellant was responsible for bearing all costs related to marketing, advertising, and promotions within the assigned territory. Additionally, Sunlight Sports entered into sponsorship agreements with entities such as the Karnataka Badminton Association (KBA) and prominent badminton player P.V. Sindhu, which involved providing sports equipment and sponsorships to promote the ‘Li Ning’ brand.

The Dispute

The Revenue authorities investigated the valuation of ‘Li Ning’ branded goods imported from Singapore between February 2012 and March 2015. A show-cause notice was issued in February 2017, alleging that the marketing, advertising, sponsorship, and promotional expenses incurred by the appellant were a condition of sale and should be included in the value of the imported goods under Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.

The key allegations included:
- The appellant undertook promotional activities for ‘Li Ning’ branded products as per Article 7 of the distribution agreement.
- Sponsorship agreements signed by Sunlight Sports were represented in India through the appellant.
- Some sponsorship agreements were signed by the appellant’s manager on behalf of Sunlight Sports.
- The appellant failed to provide a clear bifurcation of marketing expenses between ‘Li Ning’ and ‘Vicky’ brands.
- The marketing expenses were deemed a condition of sale, making them includable in the customs valuation.
The Revenue authorities argued that the appellant’s marketing expenses were a condition of sale and invoked the extended period of limitation, alleging suppression of facts and intent to evade customs duty.

Appellant’s Defense

The appellant contested the allegations, arguing:
1. No Payments on Behalf of Sunlight Sports: The appellant claimed that they did not pay any amount on behalf of Sunlight Sports and that the marketing expenses were incurred independently as part of their responsibility for sales promotion within India.
2. Post-Import Activity: The appellant argued that the marketing and promotional expenses were post-import activities and not a condition of sale.
3. Arms-Length Transactions: The appellant emphasized that the transactions were conducted at arm’s length and that the parties were not related.
4. No Fixed Obligation: The appellant highlighted that the distribution agreement did not specify any fixed amount or percentage of the invoice value to be spent on marketing and promotion.
5. Precedents: The appellant cited rulings from the Supreme Court and CESTAT, including the Toyota Kirloskar Motor Pvt. Ltd. and Richemont India Pvt. Ltd. cases, to argue that post-import expenses are not includable in the transaction value.
6. Extended Limitation Period: The appellant contended that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.
CESTAT’s Final Decision

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating:
- The marketing and promotional expenses incurred by the appellant were post-import activities and not a condition of sale.
- The distribution agreement did not impose any fixed obligation on the appellant to incur specific marketing expenses as a precondition for the sale of goods.
- The appellant was not related to Sunlight Sports, and the transactions were conducted at arm’s length.
- The extended period of limitation was not applicable as there was no suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits, including a refund of the amount deposited during the investigation, along with applicable interest.

Key Takeaways
1. Customs Valuation Rules: Rule 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, applies only when marketing and promotional expenses are a condition of sale.
2. Post-Import Activities: Expenses incurred for marketing and promotion after the importation of goods are not includable in the customs valuation.
3. Extended Limitation Period: The extended period of limitation under the Customs Act requires evidence of suppression of facts or intent to evade duty.
4. Precedents Matter: Previous rulings, such as those in the Toyota Kirloskar and Richemont India cases, play a crucial role in determining the applicability of customs valuation rules.
Conclusion

The Indo Rubber CESTAT Delhi case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of customs valuation rules and the distinction between pre-import and post-import activities. It serves as a precedent for importers and distributors, emphasizing the need for clear agreements and proper documentation to avoid disputes with Revenue authorities.

This judgment reinforces the principle that marketing and promotional expenses incurred independently by the importer are not necessarily includable in the customs valuation of imported goods.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Delhi – Import Valuation Cannot Include Advertising or Management Fees

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 13, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rejection of ₹27.5 Lakh ADD Refund
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.04.2026

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Rejection of ₹27.5 Lakh ADD Refund

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

This article delves into the legal case of M/s AKASAKA Electronic Ltd (now M/s MIRC Electronics Limited) versus the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, as adjudicated by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai. The case revolves around a refund dispute concerning Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) payments and the principle of unjust enrichment.

Case Background

The dispute originated from the provisional imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on Copper Clad Laminates imported by AKASAKA Electronic Ltd through nine Bills of Entry between September 19, 2003, and January 22, 2004. The ADD was later rescinded on January 22, 2004, as per Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, which mandates the refund of provisional ADD if the duty is withdrawn without confirmation.

Despite the withdrawal of the ADD, the appellant did not receive the refund of Rs. 27,51,395/- paid as ADD. After waiting for a year, the appellant filed a refund application under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, which was rejected on the grounds of unjust enrichment. The rejection was based on the observation that the duty amount was recorded as an expenditure in the appellant’s Profit & Loss Account rather than as a receivable.

Legal Proceedings

First Round of Litigation

In the first round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter back for re-adjudication, emphasizing that the appellant should be given an opportunity to substantiate their case with relevant documents. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities’ contention that recording the duty amount as an expenditure in the Profit & Loss Account conclusively proved unjust enrichment.

Second Round of Litigation

Despite the Tribunal’s direction, the Refund Sanctioning Authority rejected the refund claim again, citing the appellant’s failure to provide conclusive evidence that the duty incidence was not passed on to customers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Allied Photographic India Ltd, which stated that uniformity in price does not necessarily prove that the duty incidence was not passed on.

Final Tribunal Decision

In the second round of litigation, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that:
- Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, explicitly mandates the refund of provisional ADD if the duty is withdrawn, without requiring the importer to file a refund claim.
- The rejection of the refund claim based on the principle of unjust enrichment was not supported by standard accounting principles.
- The Tribunal cited multiple precedents, including M/s. EMA Lubes Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ring Plus Aqua Ltd., to argue that the mere recording of the duty amount as an expenditure does not establish unjust enrichment.
- The Tribunal also criticized the reliance on the Allied Photographic India Ltd case, stating that it was not applicable to the present case.
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in scrutinizing the refund claim under the principle of unjust enrichment, as Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, clearly stipulates that the ADD should be refunded without such scrutiny.

Final Order

The Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, to refund the Anti-Dumping Duty of Rs. 27,51,395/- along with applicable interest to the appellant within two months of the order date.

Key Takeaways
1. Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995: This rule mandates the refund of provisional ADD if the duty is withdrawn without confirmation, eliminating the need for a refund application.
2. Unjust Enrichment: The principle of unjust enrichment cannot be conclusively established based solely on the recording of duty as an expenditure in financial statements. Standard accounting principles do not support this assumption.
3. Legal Precedents: The Tribunal’s decision was supported by multiple precedents, which clarified the interpretation of unjust enrichment and the role of accounting practices in legal disputes.
4. Importance of Proper Documentation: The case highlights the critical role of documentation, such as Chartered Accountant certificates and financial statements, in legal disputes involving tax refunds.
Conclusion

The case of AKASAKA Electronic Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, underscores the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and established accounting principles in legal disputes. It also serves as a reminder of the need for clear and consistent documentation to substantiate claims in tax-related matters. The Tribunal’s decision not only provides relief to the appellant but also sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 13, 2026
Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Redemption Fines Under Section 125 of the Customs Act
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.04.2026

Bombay High Court Clarifies Scope of Redemption Fines Under Section 125 of the Customs Act

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

The Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of The Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. M/s. Finesse Creation Inc.. This case revolved around the legality of imposing redemption fines and confiscating imported goods that were no longer available for seizure or confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act and its application in cases where the goods in question are not physically available for confiscation.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a search conducted at the premises of M/s. Finesse Creation Inc. on September 28, 2006, where incriminating documents were recovered. Upon scrutiny, it was discovered that the value declared by the respondent for imported artificial flowers was significantly lower than the value indicated in the seized documents. This discrepancy led to the issuance of a show-cause notice on August 31, 2007, and subsequent adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs.

The Commissioner of Customs rejected the declared value of the goods for 13 consignments imported between August 4, 2003, and September 20, 2006. The goods were reassessed at a higher value of ₹44,82,452, resulting in a differential duty of ₹8,20,543 under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act. Additionally, interest under Section 28AB was ordered, and penalties were imposed. The imported goods were confiscated, and a redemption fine of ₹13,45,000 under Section 125 of the Customs Act was imposed in lieu of confiscation.

Appeal to CESTAT

The respondent challenged the Commissioner order before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). While the tribunal upheld the differential duty, penalties, and interest, it set aside the redemption fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act. The tribunal relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar vs. Raja Impex (P) Ltd., which held that redemption fines cannot be imposed if the goods are not available for confiscation.

Key Legal Questions

The Bombay High Court admitted the appeal on two key questions:
1. Whether goods deemed improperly imported are liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, even if they are cleared and not available for seizure.
2. Whether the CESTAT was correct in holding that imported goods not available for confiscation are not liable for redemption fines under Section 125 of the Customs Act.
Courts Analysis and Judgment

The Bombay High Court examined the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, which grants the Customs Authorities the power to confiscate goods that violate the Act, rules, or notifications. The court emphasized that the concept of redemption fine arises only when the goods are available for redemption. If the goods are not available, the question of confiscation or redemption does not arise.

The court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court\u0019s judgment in Weston Components Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. In Weston, the goods were released on the execution of a bond, and the Supreme Court held that redemption fines could still be imposed. However, in the case of Finesse Creation, the goods were cleared earlier and were not available for confiscation or redemption.

The court concluded that the tribunal was correct in holding that no redemption fine could be imposed in the absence of the goods. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the CESTAT decision.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation and application of Section 125 of the Customs Act:
1. Clarification on Redemption Fines: The judgment establishes that redemption fines under Section 125 can only be imposed if the goods are physically available for confiscation and redemption.
2. Distinction from Previous Judgments: The court clarified that the Weston Components Ltd. case is not applicable in situations where the goods are not available for confiscation.
3. Impact on Importers and Exporters: Importers and exporters must ensure accurate declarations to avoid penalties and confiscation. However, this judgment provides relief in cases where goods are no longer available for seizure.
Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s decision in The Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. M/s. Finesse Creation Inc. underscores the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act while also providing clarity on the limitations of imposing redemption fines. This case serves as a precedent for similar disputes and highlights the need for transparency and compliance in international trade practices.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Kolkata- Differential Customs Duty Demand and Confiscation Order Declared Unsustainable

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 13, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand Under IGCR Rules
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 11.04.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Duty Demand Under IGCR Rules

This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .

In a recent legal case, K.A. Enterprises, a manufacturer of sanitary napkins, faced allegations of violating import procedures and exemption rules under the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around the import of raw materials—super absorbent polymers and untreated fluff pulp—used in the production of sanitary napkins. The dispute highlighted the complexities of adhering to the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 (IGCR Rules) and the implications of non-compliance.

Background of the Case

K.A. Enterprises imported super absorbent polymers and untreated fluff pulp between October 2018 and June 2021, claiming a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated June 30, 2017. To avail of this exemption, importers are required to follow the procedures outlined in the IGCR Rules. The Customs Department alleged that K.A. Enterprises failed to comply with these rules, specifically Rule 5 and Rule 6, which mandate prior declarations and record-keeping of imported goods.

The department claimed that K.A. Enterprises imported 452 metric tons of untreated fluff pulp but filed declarations for only 150 metric tons under Rule 5 of the IGCR Rules. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued on January 31, 2022, demanding differential duty of ₹31,40,636 along with interest and penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

Key Legal Provisions

The case hinged on the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017
- Rule 5: Requires importers to provide prior information about the estimated quantity and value of goods to the jurisdictional customs officer and submit a continuity bond.
- Rule 6: Mandates importers to provide information about the receipt of imported goods and maintain detailed records of their usage.
- Rule 8: Allows recovery of duty if the imported goods are not used for the declared purpose.
Customs Act, 1962
- Section 28(4): Allows the recovery of customs duty in cases of short payment or non-payment due to suppression of facts.
- Section 114A: Imposes penalties for non-compliance with customs regulations.
Arguments Presented

K.A. Enterprises

The appellant argued that:
1. The demand was based on unfounded allegations of excess imports without following the IGCR Rules.
2. They had complied with all requirements, including filing the requisite declarations and providing estimated quantities and values.
3. Procedural lapses, if any, should not result in the denial of the exemption benefit.
4. The demand was time-barred as the show-cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation.
Customs Department

The Customs Department contended that:
1. K.A. Enterprises violated Rule 5 by failing to provide prior intimation of the estimated quantity and value of imports.
2. The appellant suppressed the actual quantities imported, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4).
Tribunal’s Observations and Final Order

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) analyzed the case and made the following observations:
1. There was no dispute regarding the nature of the imported goods or their intended use.
2. The department failed to provide evidence that the Assistant Commissioners at the jurisdictional level or the port of import allowed clearance of goods in excess of declared quantities.
3. The responsibility for any irregularities in the clearance process lies with the customs officials, not the appellant.
4. The demand for differential duty and penalties on K.A. Enterprises was not substantiated.
Based on these findings, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of K.A. Enterprises.

Key Takeaways

This case underscores the importance of:
1. Strict Compliance: Importers must adhere to all procedural requirements under the IGCR Rules to avoid disputes and penalties.
2. Accountability: Customs officials play a crucial role in ensuring compliance and must be held accountable for any lapses in the clearance process.
3. Legal Recourse: Businesses should be aware of their rights and seek legal remedies when faced with unjustified demands or penalties.
Conclusion

The case of K.A. Enterprises serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in customs procedures and the importance of meticulous compliance. It also highlights the need for transparency and accountability in the enforcement of customs regulations. Businesses must ensure they are well-versed in applicable rules and prepared to defend their rights in case of disputes.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 11, 2026
CESTAT Delhi- Certificate of Origin Cannot Be Rejected Without Following Prescribed Verification Procedure
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 10.04.2026

CESTAT Delhi- Certificate of Origin Cannot Be Rejected Without Following Prescribed Verification Procedure

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) 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 recent ruling by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in New Delhi, the case of M/s Hazoorilal & Sons Jewellers Private Limited and its erstwhile director, against the Principal Commissioner of Customs was brought to a conclusion. This case revolved around the denial of customs duty exemptions claimed by Hazoorilal & Sons Jewellers on imported jewelry from Thailand under the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between India and Thailand. The tribunal’s decision has significant implications for businesses relying on Certificates of Origin for preferential trade benefits.

Background of the Case

Hazoorilal & Sons Jewellers imported jewelry from Thailand, leveraging the duty-free import benefits provided under Notification No. 85/2004-CUS dated August 31, 2004. This notification allowed for the exemption of customs duties on goods manufactured in Thailand, provided they met the minimum value addition requirement of 20% in Thailand. To substantiate their claim, Hazoorilal submitted Certificates of Origin issued by the competent authority in Thailand, which confirmed a value addition of 22%.

However, the Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted an investigation and raised doubts about the authenticity of the value addition claims. The DRI issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on July 14, 2014, proposing to deny the exemption and recover differential duties with interest, along with imposing penalties. The Principal Commissioner of Customs upheld these proposals in an order dated January 16, 2023, leading Hazoorilal & Sons Jewellers to challenge the decision before the CESTAT.

Key Legal Issues

The case primarily revolved around the following legal questions:
1. Validity of Certificates of Origin: Can the authenticity of Certificates of Origin issued by the competent authority in Thailand be doubted?
2. Procedure for Verification: If there is reasonable doubt regarding the accuracy of the Certificates of Origin, what is the prescribed mechanism for verification?
Legal Framework

The case was governed by the “Interim Rules of Origin” notified by the Indian government under Notification No. 101/2004-CUS (NT) dated August 31, 2004. These rules outline the procedures for issuing and verifying Certificates of Origin, including the following key provisions:
- Rule 14: Certificates of Origin must be issued by a government authority designated by the exporting country and notified to the importing country.
- Rule 15: Provides for retroactive verification of Certificates of Origin either randomly or when there is reasonable doubt about their authenticity or accuracy. The importing country must:
  - Submit a request for retroactive verification to the issuing authority in the exporting country.
  - Provide reasons and supporting information for the request.
  - Suspend preferential treatment while awaiting verification results, but allow the release of goods under administrative measures unless fraud or prohibition is suspected.
  - Receive a response from the issuing authority within three months.
Tribunal’s Observations and Decision

The tribunal noted that the DRI had failed to follow the prescribed procedure for verifying the Certificates of Origin. Instead of requesting retroactive verification from the issuing authority in Thailand as per Rule 15, the DRI relied on statements from individuals and a letter from another jeweler to question the value addition claims. This approach was deemed contrary to the law.

The tribunal emphasized that the proper procedure for challenging the authenticity of Certificates of Origin is clearly outlined in the Interim Rules of Origin. The failure to adhere to these rules rendered the SCN and the subsequent order by the Principal Commissioner legally unsustainable.

Final Verdict

The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals filed by Hazoorilal & Sons Jewellers and its director. The appellants were granted consequential relief, if any, as per the law.

Implications of the Ruling

For Businesses

This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to established procedures for verifying Certificates of Origin under FTAs. Businesses can take solace in the fact that the legal framework protects their rights when they comply with the rules.

For Customs Authorities

The decision serves as a reminder for customs authorities to follow the prescribed mechanisms for verification and avoid arbitrary actions that could lead to legal challenges.

Conclusion

The CESTAT’s ruling in favor of Hazoorilal & Sons Jewellers highlights the critical role of procedural compliance in customs disputes. By setting aside the impugned order, the tribunal reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the rules governing Certificates of Origin under FTAs. This case serves as a precedent for similar disputes and provides clarity on the legal obligations of both importers and customs authorities.

Source: CESTAT Delhi

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 10, 2026
Bombay High Court Holds Subsequent Buyer Not Liable for Customs Duty
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 09.04.2026

Bombay High Court Holds Subsequent Buyer Not Liable for Customs Duty

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) 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.

This article delves into the legal judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court on April 30, 2019, in the case of GaganDeep Singh Anand vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai. The case revolves around an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal’s order dated July 28, 2017. The judgment addresses key legal questions concerning customs duty, penalties, and the confiscation of a vehicle imported into India.

Background of the Case

The case pertains to the import of a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado by Mr. Dholakia in 2002 under the Transfer of Residence Rule, 2002. The vehicle was declared as manufactured in 1997, allowing the importer to claim depreciation benefits. The car was cleared for home consumption after payment of customs duty. Subsequently, the car was sold to Mr. Oberoi, who later sold it to the appellant, Mr. GaganDeep Singh Anand, in 2005 for a sum of ₹12 lakhs.

In 2007, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated investigations and seized the car, alleging misdeclaration of the year of manufacture. A show-cause notice was issued, demanding differential customs duty due to the correct valuation of the car (manufactured in 2002, not 1997). The notice also sought to impose penalties and confiscate the car under Section 111 of the Customs Act.

Key Legal Questions

The Bombay High Court addressed three substantial questions of law:
1. Was the Appellate Tribunal correct in upholding the demand for customs duty from the appellant, the second buyer of the car?
2. Was the imposition of a penalty of ₹3,00,000 on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act justified?
3. Did the Appellate Tribunal err in not deleting the demand for duty from the appellant, given that the car was confiscated and the option to redeem it was never exercised?
Court’s Observations and Judgment

Question 1 and 3: Demand for Customs Duty

The court examined the facts and legal provisions under the Customs Act, particularly Sections 125 and 126. It was established that:
- The appellant was the second buyer of the car and not the importer.
- The car was confiscated in 2008, with an option to redeem it by paying a fine of ₹8 lakhs. However, the appellant did not exercise this option, and the car remained in the possession of customs.
- Section 125(2) of the Customs Act mandates that the owner of confiscated goods must pay the redemption fine and duty only if they choose to redeem the goods. Since the appellant did not exercise this option, the obligation to pay the differential duty did not arise.
The court referred to precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Fortis Hospital Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Commissioner of Customs vs. VXL India Ltd., which clarified that differential duty could only be recovered from the importer and not subsequent buyers who did not redeem confiscated goods.

Verdict: The court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the demand for customs duty was not justified.

Question 2: Imposition of Penalty

The Tribunal had upheld the penalty of ₹3,00,000 imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, alleging that he financed the import of the car. However, the court found this claim to be baseless, as the appellant had obtained a loan in 2005 to purchase the car from Mr. Oberoi, and there was no evidence to suggest that he financed the car’s import in 2002.

The court emphasized that the appellant’s actions did not constitute abetment of illegal importation, nor was there any act or omission on his part that rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.

Verdict: The court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the penalty was unjustified.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s judgment in this case underscores the importance of distinguishing between importers and subsequent buyers in cases involving customs duty and penalties. The court clarified that:
- Differential duty can only be recovered from the importer, not from subsequent buyers who did not redeem confiscated goods.
- Penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act require clear evidence of abetment or acts leading to confiscation, which was absent in this case.
This judgment serves as a significant precedent for similar cases, ensuring that bona fide purchasers are not unfairly penalized for actions they were not involved in. The appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, with no order as to costs.

Key Takeaways for Importers and Buyers
1. Due Diligence: Buyers should conduct thorough checks on the legal status of imported goods before purchasing.
2. Legal Protections: Bona fide purchasers are protected under the law from being held liable for customs duty or penalties related to the importer’s actions.
3. Redemption of Confiscated Goods: If goods are confiscated, the obligation to pay duty and fines arises only if the option to redeem the goods is exercised.
This case highlights the complexities of customs law and the importance of understanding legal provisions to safeguard one’s rights and interests.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties and Confiscation in Mercedes Benz Import

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 9, 2026
CESTAT Hyderabad Ruled on Alleged Customs Duty Evasion and Misdeclared MRP
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 09.04.2026

CESTAT Hyderabad Ruled on Alleged Customs Duty Evasion and Misdeclared MRP

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) 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 legal case involving Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd and the Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad, revolves around allegations of customs duty evasion through the misdeclaration of the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on imported mobile phones. This case, adjudicated by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Regional Bench at Hyderabad, highlights critical issues related to customs valuation, excise duty, and the legal interpretation of related entities.

Background of the Case

M/s Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd, along with its distributor M/s Big C Mobiles Pvt Ltd and individual directors, faced allegations of evading customs duty by declaring a lower Retail Sale Price (RSP) for imported mobile phones. The Customs Department alleged that the appellants declared an RSP below ₹2,000 at the time of import to pay a lower Countervailing Duty (CVD). Subsequently, the MRP labels on the mobile phones were allegedly altered to reflect a higher price after customs clearance.

The case involved multiple appeals:
1. Customs Appeal No. 30111 of 2016: Filed by M/s Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd.
2. Customs Appeal No. 30112 of 2016: Filed by Y. Guruswamy Naidu, Managing Director of Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd.
3. Customs Appeal No. 30113 of 2016: Filed by M. Balachandrudu, Director of Big C Mobiles Pvt Ltd.
4. Customs Appeal No. 30114 of 2016: Filed by M/s Big C Mobiles Pvt Ltd.
5. Customs Appeal No. 30115 of 2016: Filed by K. Krishnapavan, Director of Big C Mobiles Pvt Ltd.
Key Allegations

The Customs Department alleged that:
- Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd intentionally declared a lower MRP for six models of mobile phones during import to evade higher CVD.
- M/s Big C Mobiles Pvt Ltd altered the MRP labels on the mobile phones after customs clearance, increasing the price above ₹2,000.
- Celkon Impex Pvt Ltd and M/s Big C Mobiles Pvt Ltd were related entities, and the alteration of MRP was a joint conspiracy.
Defense Arguments

The appellants contested the allegations on several grounds:
1. No Evidence of Relationship Between Celkon Impex and Big C Mobiles: The appellants argued that M/s Big C was merely a distributor and not a related entity. They cited the lack of evidence to prove mutual interest or flow-back of benefits between the two companies.
2. Improper Interpretation of Statements: The appellants claimed that the statements of individuals, including directors and managers, were misinterpreted by the Customs Department.
3. Inapplicability of Rule 5 of Central Excise Rules, 2008: The appellants argued that Rule 5 does not apply to them as they are neither manufacturers nor involved in altering the MRP.
4. Insufficient Evidence from Market Surveys: The appellants contended that the market survey conducted by the Customs Department lacked tangible evidence and relied on assumptions and photographs.
5. Legal Precedents: The appellants cited several judgments to support their case, including ITC Ltd vs. CCE, Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, and others, emphasizing the lack of legal provisions for redetermining RSP under the Customs Act.
CESTAT’s Observations and Final Decision

The tribunal examined the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. Key observations included:
- Relationship Between Entities: The tribunal found that while there were common directors between Celkon Impex and Big C Mobiles, this alone was insufficient to establish that the two entities were related for customs valuation purposes. The corporate veil could not be pierced as there was no evidence of flow-back or mutual interest.
- Market Survey Evidence: The tribunal noted that the market survey conducted by the Customs Department lacked proper documentation and relied on photographs, which were not sufficient to prove the allegations.
- Legal Provisions: The tribunal emphasized that Rule 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 2008, was not applicable to the appellants as they were not manufacturers. Furthermore, the tribunal highlighted that any post-importation alteration of MRP should be addressed under the Central Excise Act, not the Customs Act.
- Judicial Precedents: The tribunal referred to several judgments that supported the appellants’ arguments, including cases that established the lack of machinery provisions for redetermining RSP under the Customs Act.
Based on these findings, the tribunal concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove intentional misdeclaration of RSP by the appellants. The demand for differential CVD, penalties, and confiscation was deemed unsustainable. The tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Evidence: The case underscores the necessity of tangible and substantial evidence in establishing allegations of customs duty evasion.
2. Legal Interpretation of Related Entities: Common directors or cross-shareholding alone do not establish a relationship between entities for customs valuation purposes.
3. Applicability of Legal Provisions: The case highlights the importance of applying the correct legal provisions, as post-importation alterations may fall under the purview of the Central Excise Act rather than the Customs Act.
4. Judicial Precedents: Previous judgments play a crucial role in shaping the outcome of legal cases, especially in complex matters involving customs and excise laws.
Conclusion

The Celkon Impex case serves as a significant example of the complexities involved in customs and excise law. It highlights the need for clear evidence, proper application of legal provisions, and consideration of judicial precedents in resolving disputes. The CESTAT’s decision to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned order reinforces the principle that allegations must be substantiated with concrete evidence and legal justification.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 9, 2026
CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside Penalty on Technical Grade Urea Imports
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 08.04.2026

CESTAT Ahmedabad Sets Aside Penalty on Technical Grade Urea Imports

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) 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 the realm of international trade, compliance with import regulations is crucial for businesses to avoid penalties and ensure smooth operations. This article delves into the case of Deep Traders, a Gujarat-based company, and its legal battle with the Commissioner of Customs regarding the import of Technical Grade Urea (TGU) without proper licensing. The case highlights the complexities of import policies, the role of State Trading Enterprises (STEs), and the interpretation of legal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

Deep Traders imported Technical Grade Urea (TGU) under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 31021000 on a high sea sales basis from State Trading Enterprises (MMTC) during the period April 2012 to April 2015. However, the company did not possess the requisite license from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for importing urea, which led to investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).

Key Allegations
1. Violation of Foreign Trade Policy: The import policy for urea under ITC(HS) 31021000 was amended in 2015, allowing imports by STEs and industrial users under specific conditions. Deep Traders was accused of contravening these provisions.
2. Confiscation and Penalty: Two show-cause notices were issued in 2018 and 2019, proposing confiscation of the imported goods valued at over ₹53 lakh and imposing penalties under Sections 111(d) and 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Legal Proceedings

The case went through multiple levels of adjudication:

Adjudication by Additional Commissioner of Customs

The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but did not impose redemption fines as the goods were not available for confiscation. Penalties of ₹2,25,000 and ₹1,31,912 were imposed on Deep Traders.

Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)

Deep Traders challenged the adjudication orders, arguing that:
- They had obtained permission from the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers to import 1500 MT of TGU for industrial use.
- The agreement with MMTC did not prohibit high sea sales.
- As traders, they were not required to provide input-output ratios for TGU consumption.
- The goods were cleared by Customs after payment of appropriate duties, implying no revenue loss.
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected their arguments and upheld the confiscation and penalties.

Appeal to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)

Deep Traders further appealed to the CESTAT, presenting the following arguments:
- The term “through” in the ITC(HS) policy allows imports via STEs, not necessarily by STEs.
- High sea sales are a recognized practice in international trade and are not prohibited under the policy.
- The confiscation and penalties were unjustified as the imports were made in compliance with the policy.
Tribunal’s Decision

The Tribunal analyzed similar cases, including:
- Shiv Krupa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Nasik
- Asoj Soft Caps Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad
- Sunita Commercials Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra
Key Findings
1. Interpretation of “Through” vs. “By”: The Tribunal clarified that the term “through” in the ITC(HS) policy means that imports can be facilitated by STEs, not necessarily conducted directly by them.
2. High Sea Sales: The Tribunal noted that high sea sales are a standard practice and are permissible under the policy.
3. No Revenue Loss: Since the goods were cleared by Customs after payment of duties, there was no revenue loss to the government.
4. No Grounds for Confiscation or Penalty: The Tribunal found no evidence of policy violation or grounds for imposing penalties under Sections 111(d) and 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Final Order

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, revoked the penalties, and allowed the appeals filed by Deep Traders.

Implications of the Case

This case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving import policies and high sea sales. It underscores the importance of:
- Clear Policy Interpretation: Ambiguities in policy language, such as the distinction between “through” and “by,” can lead to legal disputes.
- Documentation and Compliance: Importers must ensure they have the necessary permissions and comply with all conditions to avoid penalties.
- Legal Recourse: Businesses should not hesitate to challenge decisions that they believe are unjust, especially when supported by precedents.
Conclusion

The Deep Traders case highlights the intricate nature of import regulations and the importance of understanding and adhering to them. It also demonstrates the role of legal systems in resolving disputes and ensuring fair treatment for businesses. As international trade continues to grow, cases like these emphasize the need for clarity in policy and the significance of legal advocacy in protecting business interests.

Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 8, 2026
CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Vehicle Confiscation and Penalty
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 07.04.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Vehicle Confiscation and Penalty

Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) 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 confiscation of a vehicle and the imposition of a penalty on its owner, Appellant, in a case involving the alleged transportation of foreign-origin goods. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Member Judicial, highlights the importance of evidence in proving the foreign origin of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.

Background of the Case

The case originated on October 5, 2020, when a vehicle bearing registration number BR01GH-9594 was intercepted near Maithi Toll Plaza on Darbhanga Road, Bihar. The driver, informed authorities that the vehicle was loaded with goods described as “Khesari Packet 100×50” on an invoice issued by M/s. Gupta Gaila Bhandar and General Store. However, upon further inspection, 100 jute bags containing green peas and yellow peas, weighing 4,300 kilograms, were discovered in the vehicle. Two traders present during the inspection opined that the peas appeared to be of foreign origin, with a retail price of Rs. 60-70 per kilogram.

The driver admitted during interrogation that he was transporting the goods without valid documentation and was using his elder brother’s driving license. He also revealed that the vehicle belonged to the appellant, and that the business activities of the vehicle were managed by his brother. The driver further confessed to transporting Nepali peas for extra money.

Following the seizure of the vehicle under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, proposing the confiscation of the vehicle and the imposition of a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Act. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,45,073/- and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appellant to challenge the order before the CESTAT.

Tribunal’s Observations and Final Order 

The case was heard on April 6, 2026, with no representation from the appellant. Despite this, the tribunal proceeded to examine the matter, noting that the issue at hand was limited to the confiscation of the vehicle and the imposition of the penalty.

The tribunal observed that the sole allegation against the appellant was the transportation of goods allegedly of foreign origin. However, upon reviewing the records, the tribunal found no evidence to substantiate the claim that the goods were of foreign origin. It emphasized that under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to establish the foreign origin of goods that are not notified under the Act. In this case, the Revenue failed to provide any such evidence.

In light of the lack of proof, the tribunal held that the confiscation of the vehicle and the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty were unwarranted. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Key Takeaways
1. Burden of Proof Under Section 123: The judgment underscores the principle that the onus of proving the foreign origin of goods lies with the Revenue, especially when the goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Importance of Evidence: The tribunal highlighted the necessity of concrete evidence to support allegations of foreign origin, emphasizing that mere suspicion or opinion is insufficient.
3. Protection of Rights: The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding the rights of individuals and businesses against unwarranted penalties and confiscations.
Conclusion

The CESTAT’s decision in this case is a significant development in customs law, reinforcing the importance of evidence-based adjudication. It provides clarity on the application of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, and serves as a precedent for similar cases in the future. The judgment not only upholds the principles of justice but also ensures that individuals are not penalized without proper evidence.

Source: CESTAT Kolkata

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

www.aadrikaalaw.com
April 7, 2026