𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #CESTAT

CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in SEIS Scrip Misclassification
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 17.03.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Penalties in SEIS Scrip Misclassification

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 Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Amity Software Systems Ltd. & Appellant vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. This case revolved around the classification of exported services under the Service Export from India Scheme (SEIS) and the imposition of penalties under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal’s decision has set a precedent for cases involving disputes over service classifications and penalties.

Background of the Case

M/s. Amity Software Systems Ltd., a company engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services and implementation of IT services, claimed SEIS scrip benefits from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). These scrips, which are transferable, were sold to buyers. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad, initiated an investigation into the company’s export activities.

The investigation revealed that the services exported by the appellant fell under Group/Division 84 of Annexure 1 of the Explanatory Notes to Provisional CPC issued by DGFT, rather than Group/Division 86, as claimed by the appellant. This distinction was crucial because services under Group 84 are not eligible for SEIS scrip benefits. Consequently, a Show Cause Notice was issued on June 27, 2022, alleging suppression of facts and improper claim of SEIS scrips.

Following due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed a customs duty demand of ₹1,08,14,291, along with a penalty of ₹25,00,000 against the appellant company and ₹5,00,000 against its Managing Director. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Tribunal.

Arguments Presented by the Appellants 

The appellants, represented by their counsel, argued that:
1. Bonafide Belief in Classification: The company believed that the services rendered fell under Group 86, which includes legal, accounting, auditing, market research, management, and consulting services. They contended that the services were provided exclusively to foreign entities, with payments received in foreign exchange.
2. No Suppression of Facts: The appellants argued that all relevant details were disclosed to the DGFT and customs authorities, and there was no willful suppression of facts as alleged.
3. Payment of Confirmed Demand: To avoid prolonged litigation, the company paid the entire confirmed demand of ₹1,08,14,291 along with interest of ₹51,81,981. They also paid a penalty of ₹20,00,000 imposed by the DGFT under Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.
4. Request for Penalty Waiver: The appellants contested only the penalties imposed under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, arguing that the issue was one of interpretation and no malafide intent could be attributed to them.
Arguments Presented by the Respondent

The respondent justified the confirmed demand and penalties, stating:
1. Admission of Suppression: The appellants did not contest the DGFT’s findings and paid the penalty imposed, which indicated an admission of suppression.
2. Incorrect Classification: The services exported by the appellants clearly fell under Group 84, making them ineligible for SEIS scrip benefits.
Tribunal’s Observations and Final Order 

After hearing both sides and reviewing the appeal papers, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Thin Line Between Group 84 and Group 86: The Tribunal noted that the difference between the descriptions under Group 84 and Group 86 was minimal, making it a matter of interpretation.
2. Bonafide Belief: The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants could have reasonably believed their services fell under Group 86, given the thin line of distinction between the two groups.
3. Acceptance of DGFT’s Decision: The Tribunal observed that the appellants had accepted the DGFT’s decision and paid the penalty imposed without contesting it further.
4. Penalty Waiver: Considering the appellants’ bonafide belief, their payment of the confirmed demand and interest, and the penalty imposed by the DGFT, the Tribunal set aside the penalties of ₹25,00,000 on the appellant company and ₹5,00,000 on the Managing Director under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Consequential Relief: The Tribunal held that the appellants would be eligible for any consequential relief as per the law.
Key Takeaways

This judgment highlights several important aspects of customs and trade law:
1. Importance of Accurate Classification: The case underscores the criticality of correctly classifying services under the DGFT’s Explanatory Notes to Provisional CPC for claiming SEIS scrip benefits.
2. Bonafide Belief and Interpretation: The Tribunal’s decision demonstrates that penalties may be waived in cases where the issue arises from a genuine difference in interpretation and no malafide intent is established.
3. Acceptance of Liability: The appellants’ decision to pay the confirmed demand and interest without contesting it played a significant role in the Tribunal’s decision to waive the penalties.
4. Role of DGFT: The DGFT’s authority in determining the eligibility of services for SEIS scrip benefits was reaffirmed.
Conclusion

The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision in this case is a landmark ruling that provides clarity on the interpretation of service classifications under the DGFT’s Explanatory Notes to Provisional CPC. It also emphasizes the importance of transparency and good faith in dealings with customs and trade authorities. By setting aside the penalties, the Tribunal has reinforced the principle that genuine errors in interpretation should not be penalized harshly, provided there is no evidence of willful suppression or malafide intent. This judgment will serve as a guiding precedent for similar cases in the future.

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
March 17, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Enhanced Valuation and Penalty on Flipkart
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 17.03.2026

CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Enhanced Valuation and Penalty on Flipkart

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 Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of Flipkart India Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), setting aside the enhanced valuation, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on Flipkart India Private Limited by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-III. The case revolved around the alleged undervaluation of imported goods and the subsequent re-determination of their assessable value by the customs authorities.

Background of the Case 

Flipkart India Private Limited filed Customs Appeal No. 89472 of 2018, challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated January 19, 2018, which upheld the original authority’s decision to enhance the assessable value of imported goods, confiscate them, and impose penalties. The goods in question were 28,600 units of “Power Bank 5200mAH” (part number VXN4062IN) imported from M/s Xiaomi Singapore PTE Limited, Singapore. The declared unit value of the goods was US $3.64, which the customs authorities rejected, citing alleged undervaluation based on contemporaneous import data.

The original authority had re-determined the assessable value of the goods at Rs. 454.50 per unit, based on the import value of similar goods supplied to M/s Beetel Teletech Limited at Rs. 454.50 per unit. The customs authorities also imposed a redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125(1) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and confiscated the goods under Section 111(m) of the Act.

Key Issues in the Case 

The Tribunal was tasked with determining two critical issues:
1. Whether the enhancement of the value of imported goods based on the value of similar goods was sustainable under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 (CVR).
2. Whether the consequential actions of confiscation, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty were legally justified under the Customs Act, 1962.
Arguments Presented

Arguments by Flipkart India Private Limited 

The learned advocate for Flipkart India Private Limited argued that:
1. The declared transaction value of US $3.64 per unit was accurate and should have been accepted under Rule 3 of the CVR, as it was based on a valid supply agreement with the foreign supplier, M/s Xiaomi Singapore PTE Limited.
2. The customs authorities failed to consider the value of identical goods imported by Flipkart from the same supplier during the same period, which were cleared without dispute at the declared value.
3. The re-determined value of Rs. 454.50 per unit was based on a single transaction of 10,000 units imported by M/s Beetel Teletech Limited, which was not comparable to Flipkart’s wholesale-level import of 28,600 units as part of a larger purchase order for 2,00,000 units.
4. The customs authorities did not follow the sequential application of Rules 4 to 9 of the CVR, as mandated by law, and failed to provide evidence of mis-declaration or flowback of additional consideration.
5. The alleged undervaluation was based on a misinterpretation of the INCO terms in the proforma invoice, which was later clarified by the supplier.
Arguments by the Revenue 

The learned authorized representative for the Revenue justified the impugned order, arguing that:
1. The enhancement of the value was based on contemporaneous import data of similar goods, which was valid under Rule 5 of the CVR.
2. The mis-declaration of INCO terms and undervaluation empowered the customs authorities to reject the declared value and impose penalties and fines.
Tribunal’s Observations and Findings 

After carefully examining the submissions and evidence presented by both sides, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Rejection of Declared Value: The Tribunal noted that the customs authorities had failed to consider the transaction value of identical goods imported by Flipkart from the same supplier during the same period. The declared value of US $3.64 per unit for 1,71,400 units of identical goods was accepted by the same Customs Commissionerate without dispute. The authorities instead relied on a single transaction of 10,000 units imported by M/s Beetel Teletech Limited at Rs. 454.50 per unit, which was not comparable in terms of commercial level and quantity.
2. Sequential Application of CVR Rules: The Tribunal emphasized that the customs authorities did not follow the sequential application of Rules 4 to 9 of the CVR, as required by law. The authorities directly invoked Rule 5 without considering the transaction value under Rule 3 or the value of identical goods under Rule 4.
3. Mis-declaration of INCO Terms: The Tribunal found that the alleged mis-declaration of INCO terms was adequately explained by the supplier’s letter dated March 9, 2015, which clarified that the terms of sale were on a “CIP” basis. The customs authorities failed to provide evidence to support their claim that the declared value was incorrect.
4. Confiscation, Fine, and Penalty: The Tribunal held that the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty were not justified, as the customs officers who examined the goods did not report any mis-declaration, and the mandatory requirements for labeling were complied with.
5. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal relied on several judicial precedents, including Suyog Extrusions, Sarto Electro Equipment Ltd., Agarwal Foundries (P) Ltd., and South India Television (P) Ltd., to conclude that the transaction value cannot be rejected without evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices.
Final Decision

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated January 19, 2018, and allowed the appeal filed by Flipkart India Private Limited. The Tribunal ruled that the re-determination of the assessable value, confiscation of goods, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty were not sustainable under the Customs Act, 1962, and the CVR, 2007.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Transaction Value: The judgment reinforces the principle that the transaction value declared by the importer should be accepted unless there is concrete evidence to prove undervaluation or mis-declaration.
2. Sequential Application of CVR Rules: Customs authorities must follow the sequential application of Rules 4 to 9 of the CVR when determining the assessable value of imported goods.
3. Burden of Proof: The onus is on the customs authorities to prove that the declared value is incorrect, supported by evidence of contemporaneous imports of identical or similar goods at higher prices.
4. Commercial Level and Quantity: The price of imported goods at the wholesale level cannot be compared to the price of goods
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
March 17, 2026
CESTAT Chandigarh- Inconclusive Test Reports Cannot Justify Reclassification or Penalties in Customs Disputes
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 16.03.2026

CESTAT Chandigarh- Inconclusive Test Reports Cannot Justify Reclassification or Penalties in Customs Disputes

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 Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals concerning the classification of imported goods. The case revolved around whether the imported goods declared as “Pressed Distillate Oil” (PDO) could be classified as “Base Oil” based on inconclusive test reports from the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). This decision has far-reaching implications for importers and the customs authorities, particularly in cases involving disputes over product classification and valuation.

Background of the Case

The appeals stemmed from two separate cases:
1. Appeals by M/s S.K. Petrochem and Shri Jeevan Jain M/s S.K. Petrochem imported consignments of “Pressed Distillate Oil” and filed four Bills of Entry for clearance. The CRCL test report indicated that the samples had characteristics of “Base Oil,” leading to the seizure of goods and issuance of a Show Cause Notice proposing reclassification, penalties, and fines. The adjudicating authority confirmed the proposals, imposing penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. M/s S.K. Petrochem and Shri Jeevan Jain challenged the order.
2. Appeals by Revenue Against M/s Om Udyog M/s Om Udyog imported similar consignments and filed two Bills of Entry, declaring the goods as “Pressed Distillate Oil.” The CRCL test report suggested the goods had characteristics of “Base Oil,” leading to their seizure and reclassification. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order, dropping the proceedings against M/s Om Udyog. The Revenue challenged this decision.
Key Issues in the Case 

The primary issue was whether the goods declared as “Pressed Distillate Oil” could be conclusively classified as “Base Oil” based on the CRCL test reports. The tribunal also examined whether the adjudicating authority’s refusal to allow cross-examination of the chemical examiner constituted a violation of natural justice.

Arguments Presented
- Appellants’ Arguments: The appellants argued that the CRCL test reports were inconclusive, as they merely stated that the samples had characteristics of “Base Oil” without definitively classifying the goods as such. They contended that the denial of cross-examination of the chemical examiner was a violation of natural justice. The appellants cited previous judgments, including the CESTAT Chandigarh’s decision in the case of M/s Golden Enterprises, which held that inconclusive test reports could not be the basis for reclassification and penalties.
- Revenue’s Arguments: The Revenue defended the original orders, reiterating that the CRCL test reports were sufficient to classify the goods as “Base Oil” and justify the penalties and fines imposed.
Tribunal’s Observations and Findings 

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the tribunal made the following observations:
1. Inconclusive Test Reports: The CRCL test reports merely indicated that the samples had characteristics of “Base Oil” but did not categorically classify the goods as such. The tribunal noted that the chemical examiner’s report lacked definitive findings and failed to address whether the goods were “Base Oil” or “Pressed Distillate Oil.”
2. Violation of Natural Justice: The tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority’s refusal to allow cross-examination of the chemical examiner constituted a serious violation of the principles of natural justice. Cross-examination would have provided clarity and potentially resolved the ambiguity in the test reports.
3. Precedents: The tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the case of M/s Golden Enterprises, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. In that case, the court ruled that inconclusive test reports could not be the basis for reclassification or allegations of misdeclaration.
4. Benefit of Doubt: Given the lack of conclusive evidence, the tribunal decided to give the benefit of the doubt to the importers. It held that the Revenue had failed to establish that the goods were “Base Oil” and not “Pressed Distillate Oil.”
Final Decision

The tribunal delivered its final order on March 9, 2026:
1. The appeals filed by M/s S.K. Petrochem and Shri Jeevan Jain were allowed, with consequential relief as per the law.
2. The appeals filed by the Revenue against M/s Om Udyog were dismissed, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)’ decision to drop the proceedings.
Implications of the Judgment

This landmark decision underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in adjudication processes. It highlights the need for conclusive evidence when alleging misdeclaration or reclassification of imported goods. The judgment also sets a precedent for future cases involving disputes over product classification, emphasizing that inconclusive test reports cannot be the sole basis for imposing penalties or fines.

Conclusion

The CESTAT Chandigarh’s decision in these appeals serves as a reminder to customs authorities to ensure thorough investigations and adherence to procedural fairness. For importers, the judgment provides reassurance that they will not be penalized based on inconclusive evidence. As global trade continues to grow, such decisions play a crucial role in maintaining a fair and transparent customs framework.

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
March 16, 2026
Delhi High Court Dismisses Customs Appeal in Customs Broker License Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 16.03.2026

Delhi High Court Dismisses Customs Appeal in Customs Broker License Dispute

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.

On March 12, 2026, the High Court of Delhi delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs Airport and General vs. M/S Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd. The case revolved around the revocation of the Customs Broker License of M/S Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd by the Commissioner of Customs, which was subsequently overturned by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The High Court upheld the decision of CESTAT, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from a show cause notice issued to M/S Entire Logistics Pvt Ltd on December 30, 2022, alleging violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018. The Commissioner of Customs passed an Order-in-Original on February 14, 2024, revoking the Customs Broker License of the respondent. However, this order was challenged before CESTAT, which quashed the revocation on August 28, 2024, citing procedural lapses and lack of clarity in the show cause notice.

The Commissioner of Customs subsequently filed an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, before the High Court of Delhi, seeking to overturn the CESTAT decision.

Arguments Presented
1. Appellant’s Arguments:
  - The appellant argued that the show cause notice clearly outlined the violations of Regulations 10(a), 10(d), 10(e), and 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
  - The appellant contended that the show cause notice referred to specific material from another notice issued under the Customs Act, 1962, which substantiated the alleged violations.
  - It was claimed that the inquiry report and Order-in-Original provided sufficient notice to the respondent regarding the violations.
2. Respondent’s Arguments:
  - The respondent argued that the show cause notice was vague and lacked specific allegations, making it difficult to understand the exact nature of the violations.
  - The respondent contended that the Order-in-Original went beyond the scope of the show cause notice, relying on material not explicitly mentioned in the notice.
  - The respondent emphasized that the lack of clarity in the show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.
High Court’s Observations

The High Court carefully examined the arguments and the relevant legal provisions. Key observations included:
1. Vagueness of the Show Cause Notice:
  - The Court noted that the show cause notice failed to specify how the alleged violations fell within the ambit of the cited regulations. This lack of clarity made it difficult for the respondent to prepare an adequate defense.
2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
  - The Court emphasized that the show cause notice is the foundation of any legal proceedings. If the notice is vague or lacks specific details, it violates the principles of natural justice, as the noticee is not given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations.
3. Order-in-Original Exceeding Scope:
  - The Court agreed with CESTAT’s finding that the Order-in-Original had relied on material not included in the show cause notice, thereby exceeding its scope.
4. No Substantial Question of Law:
  - The Court concluded that the appeal did not involve any substantial question of law, as the issues raised were factual and procedural rather than legal.
Judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the CESTAT’s decision to quash the revocation of the Customs Broker License. The Court reiterated the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that show cause notices are clear and specific.

Key Takeaways
1. Importance of Clarity in Show Cause Notices:
  - This case highlights the critical role of clarity and specificity in show cause notices. Authorities must ensure that notices provide sufficient details to enable the noticee to respond effectively.
2. Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice:
  - The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings. Any deviation from these principles can render the proceedings invalid.
3. Scope of Orders:
  - Authorities must ensure that orders are confined to the scope of the show cause notice and do not rely on extraneous material.
Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in this case serves as a reminder to regulatory authorities to exercise due diligence while issuing show cause notices and passing orders. It also reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring fairness in administrative proceedings.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi 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
March 16, 2026
CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Duty Demand in SAD Exemption Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 14.03.2026

CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Duty Demand in SAD Exemption Dispute

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 Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a landmark judgment in favor of India Steel Works Limited and its General Manager, in the Customs Appeal Nos. 86427 and 86428 of 2016. The appeals challenged the Order-in-Original No. 21/2015-16/RT-13/NS-GEN dated February 29, 2016, issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (NS-GEN), Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva. The case revolved around the eligibility of India Steel Works Limited to claim exemption from the Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) under Notification No. 45/2005-Customs dated May 16, 2005.

Background of the Case 

India Steel Works Limited, a manufacturer of stainless steel products, imported goods such as waste and scrap of stainless steel, stainless steel billets, and ferro alloys through the Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) operated by M/s Arshiya Supply Chain Management Limited. These goods were used in the production of stainless steel products, which were later sold in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) upon payment of applicable VAT/sales tax. The company availed the SAD exemption benefit under Notification No. 45/2005-Customs, which provides exemption from the whole of SAD for goods cleared from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA, provided the goods are not exempt from sales tax or VAT.

However, based on intelligence developed by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence (DGCEI), Mumbai Zonal Unit, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated June 16, 2015, was issued to the appellants. The SCN alleged that India Steel Works Limited had wrongly availed the SAD exemption benefit and demanded Rs. 4,06,30,866/- in SAD along with interest under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The SCN also proposed the confiscation of goods under Section 111(o) and the imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act.

The Principal Commissioner of Customs upheld the SCN, confirming the duty demands, confiscation of goods, and penalties. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants filed appeals before the CESTAT.

Arguments Presented

Appellants’ Arguments 
1. Eligibility for SAD Exemption: The appellants argued that the issue of eligibility for SAD exemption on clearance from FTWZ to DTA had already been conclusively settled in favor of appellants in multiple decisions by the Tribunal. They contended that stock transfers from FTWZ to DTA cannot be equated with exemptions from sales tax/VAT.
2. Disclosure of Facts: The appellants maintained that they had made complete disclosures to the Department and followed all prescribed procedures. They argued that there was no suppression of facts or malafide intent.
3. Industry-Wide Issue: The appellants highlighted that the issue was subject to varying interpretations by different government wings, and they had acted in good faith based on assurances from the Development Commissioner of SEZ/FTWZ and the FTWZ unit.
4. Time-Barred Demand: The appellants contended that the demand for the disputed period (April 2012 to March 2013) was barred by the limitation period, as the SCN was issued beyond the normal period of one year.
Revenue’s Arguments 
1. Clarification from Ministry of Finance: The Revenue argued that Customs Circular No. 44/2013 dated December 30, 2013, clarified that SAD exemption was not available for goods cleared from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA on a stock transfer basis for self-consumption.
2. Misleading Undertaking: The Revenue alleged that the appellants had provided misleading undertakings and suppressed facts to avail the SAD exemption.
CESTAT’s Observations and Ruling 

After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal made the following observations:
1. Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referred to several previous rulings, including CRI Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs and Serum Institute of India vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, which had upheld the eligibility for SAD exemption under similar circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were identical to those in the CRI Limited case, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
2. Notification Interpretation: The Tribunal emphasized that Notification No. 45/2005-Customs exempts all goods cleared from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA, provided the goods are not exempt from sales tax/VAT. The nature of clearance—whether by sale or stock transfer—was not specified in the notification, and the proviso regarding exemption from VAT was not applicable in this case.
3. No Suppression of Facts: The Tribunal found that the appellants had acted in good faith, relying on assurances from the Development Commissioner of SEZ/FTWZ and the FTWZ unit. There was no evidence of malafide intent or suppression of facts.
4. Time-Barred Demand: The Tribunal ruled that the demand for the disputed period was time-barred, as the SCN was issued beyond the normal limitation period of one year. The extended period of limitation could not be invoked due to the absence of suppression or misstatement.
Final Order

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order on the grounds of limitation and ruled in favor of the appellants. The adjudged demands, confiscation of goods, and penalties were all quashed.

Key Takeaways
1. SAD Exemption: The judgment reinforces the principle that SAD exemption under Notification No. 45/2005-Customs is applicable to goods cleared from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA, even on a stock transfer basis, provided the goods are not exempt from sales tax/VAT.
2. Importance of Disclosure: The Tribunal highlighted the significance of full disclosure and compliance with prescribed procedures to avoid allegations of suppression or malafide intent.
3. Limitation Period: The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the limitation period for issuing SCNs, and that extended periods cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression or misstatement.
4. Judicial Precedents: The judgment demonstrates the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, with the Tribunal relying on previous rulings to arrive at its conclusion.
This decision is a significant win for India Steel Works Limited and sets a precedent for similar cases involving SAD exemption claims under Notification No. 45/2005-Customs. It also serves as a reminder to both taxpayers and authorities about the importance of adhering to legal provisions and established judicial principles.

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
March 14, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on Imported Marble Blocks
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.03.2026

CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Customs Duty, Penalty, and Redemption Fine on Imported Marble Blocks

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.

On March 9, 2026, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s Abhishek Exports, M/s Jain Grani Marmo (P) Ltd., and M/s Pacific Industries Ltd. The case revolved around the demand for customs duties, penalties, and redemption fines imposed on imported marble blocks used by 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) for domestic tariff area (DTA) sales. This article delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the tribunal’s findings.

Background of the Case

The appellants—M/s Abhishek Exports, M/s Jain Grani Marmo (P) Ltd., and M/s Pacific Industries Ltd.—are 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) engaged in the production of marble slabs and tiles. EOUs are permitted to import capital goods and raw materials duty-free under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2004-2009, provided they export their final products. However, paragraph 6.8 of the FTP allows EOUs to sell a limited quantity of finished products, rejects, waste, scrap, remnants, and by-products in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) under certain conditions.

In 2005, the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) issued Notification No. 24 (RE-2005)/2004-2009, which excluded marble from the list of items that could be sold by EOUs in the DTA. The appellants challenged this notification in the Rajasthan High Court, which issued a stay order permitting DTA sales of marble slabs subject to payment of full duties as per the FTP.

Key Issues in the Case 

The case raised several critical questions:
1. Demand for Customs Duties on Imported Marble Blocks: The department alleged that the appellants violated the conditions of the DGFT notification by selling marble slabs in the DTA without exporting the finished products. Consequently, customs duties were demanded on the imported marble blocks.
2. Extended Period of Limitation: The department invoked the extended period of limitation, alleging suppression of facts and non-disclosure of DTA clearances.
3. Penalties Under Section 114A: The department imposed penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act, claiming collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
4. Confiscation and Redemption Fine: The department held the imported marble blocks liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act and imposed redemption fines in lieu of confiscation.
Arguments Presented

Appellants’ Submissions 
1. Payment of Duties: The appellants argued that they had cleared finished products to the DTA after paying full excise duties equivalent to the aggregate customs duties, as per the proviso to Section 3(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. High Court Stay Orders: The High Court had permitted DTA sales upon payment of full duties, and the appellants complied with this directive.
3. No Collusion or Suppression: The appellants contended that there was no collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts, and all clearances were made transparently under the High Court’s stay orders.
4. Non-Applicability of Confiscation: The appellants argued that the imported marble blocks were not liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, as their import was authorized by the Development Commissioner and cleared by the proper officer.
Revenue’s Submissions 
1. Strict Interpretation of Exemption Notifications: The Revenue argued that the exemption notification for imported marble blocks was subject to strict conditions, which the appellants allegedly violated.
2. Extended Limitation Period: The Revenue claimed that the appellants did not disclose DTA clearances, justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation.
3. Confiscation and Redemption Fine: The Revenue contended that the imported marble blocks were liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, and redemption fines were correctly imposed.
Tribunal’s Findings 

After considering the submissions and reviewing the records, the tribunal made the following key findings:
1. Customs Duty Demand: The tribunal held that the demand for customs duties on the imported marble blocks was unsustainable. The appellants had paid central excise duties equal to the customs duties on the finished marble slabs cleared to the DTA, as per the High Court’s stay orders. Since the value of finished products is higher than the raw materials, there was no loss of revenue.
2. Extended Limitation Period: The tribunal did not delve into the question of limitation, as the demand for customs duties was set aside on merits.
3. Penalty Under Section 114A: The tribunal ruled that penalties under Section 114A could not be imposed, as the duty itself was not payable and there was no evidence of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
4. Confiscation and Redemption Fine: The tribunal found that the imported marble blocks were not liable to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act. The High Court’s stay orders had sanctioned the DTA clearances, and the goods were not available for confiscation. Redemption fines were also deemed unsustainable, as they are optional and the goods were not seized or provisionally released on bond.
Conclusion

The tribunal’s decision in this case is a landmark ruling that clarifies several critical aspects of customs and excise law, particularly concerning EOUs and DTA sales. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to judicial orders and highlights the limitations of the Revenue’s authority in cases where High Court stay orders are in effect. By setting aside the demands for customs duties, penalties, and redemption fines, the tribunal has provided significant relief to the appellants and reinforced the principle that judicial orders must be respected.

This case serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving EOUs and DTA sales, offering clarity on the interpretation of customs and excise laws in the context of the Foreign Trade Policy and related notifications. It also emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that considers both the interests of the Revenue and the rights of taxpayers.

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
March 13, 2026
CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability During Notification Gap Period
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.03.2026

CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Anti-Dumping Duty Applicability During Notification Gap Period

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 Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Kolkata recently delivered a landmark judgment in the case of M/s. SIBCO Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. This case revolved around the retrospective applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on imported PVC Flex Banner from China during a period when no provisional or definitive ADD notification was in force. The judgment provides critical insights into the legal framework governing ADD and its retrospective application under Indian law.

Background of the Case

M/s. SIBCO Overseas Pvt. Ltd. imported PVC Flex Banner from China on June 4, 2011, under Bill of Entry No. 3702906. At the time of import, no ADD notification was in force, as the provisional ADD imposed under Notification No. 79/2010-CUS dated July 30, 2010, had expired on January 29, 2011. Subsequently, Notification No. 82/2011-CUS dated August 25, 2011, imposed definitive ADD with retrospective effect for five years from July 30, 2010, the date of imposition of the provisional ADD.

The appellant challenged the retrospective applicability of the definitive ADD, arguing that no ADD notification was operative at the time of import. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns about the delayed finalization of the provisional assessment, which took over ten years to complete.

Key Legal Issues 

The case presented two primary legal questions:
1. Retrospective Applicability of ADD: Could definitive ADD be levied retrospectively during the gap period between the expiration of the provisional ADD and the issuance of the definitive ADD notification?
2. Delayed Finalization of Provisional Assessment: Was the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment legally permissible?
Legal Framework

The case involved the interpretation of several legal provisions, including:
- Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962: Governs provisional assessment of duty and its finalization.
- Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Provides for the imposition of ADD on dumped articles.
- Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment, and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995: Specifies the procedures for imposing ADD, including provisions for provisional and definitive duties.
- Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018: Introduced timelines for finalizing provisional assessments.
Tribunal’s Observations

1. Retrospective Applicability of ADD 

The Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports (2015), which categorically held that ADD cannot be levied during the “gap period” between the expiration of provisional ADD and the imposition of definitive ADD. The Court emphasized that retrospective levy of ADD is permissible only under specific circumstances outlined in Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act, and any attempt to levy ADD during the gap period would render the relevant provisions ultra vires.

The Tribunal also referred to other judicial precedents, including:
- Hi-tech Computers v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore (2023): Held that ADD cannot be levied during the gap period.
- Harsh Commodities Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla (2020): Confirmed that ADD cannot be imposed during the lapse between provisional and definitive notifications.
- Forech India Ltd. v. Designated Authority (2018): Stated that ADD cannot be revived after its lapse without strict adherence to legal timelines.
2. Delayed Finalization of Provisional Assessment 

The Tribunal noted that while the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment was concerning, it could not be legally faulted because the Customs (Finalization of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018, which introduced strict timelines for finalization, were not in force at the time of the import. The Tribunal also observed that the delay was partly attributable to the appellant’s delayed response to the authorities’ communications.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. No ADD During Gap Period: The Tribunal reaffirmed that ADD cannot be levied during the gap period between the expiration of provisional ADD and the issuance of definitive ADD notification. This principle is in line with the Supreme Court’s judgment in G.M. Exports and India’s obligations under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.
2. Retrospective Levy Requires Strict Compliance: The retrospective imposition of ADD is permissible only under the strict conditions outlined in Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act and the ADD Rules. Any deviation from these conditions renders the levy unsustainable.
3. Delayed Finalization of Provisional Assessments: While the Tribunal acknowledged the delay in finalizing the provisional assessment, it noted that the absence of strict timelines at the material time made it legally permissible. However, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely action by authorities to maintain trust in the system.
4. Jurisdiction of Tribunal Benches: The Tribunal clarified that its jurisdiction to hear appeals related to ADD is not restricted to Special Benches unless the appeal pertains specifically to the determination of the existence, degree, and effect of dumping under Section 9C(1) of the Customs Tariff Act.
Conclusion

The judgment in the case of M/s. SIBCO Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, is a significant development in the realm of anti-dumping law in India. It underscores the importance of adhering to legal provisions and timelines for the imposition and finalization of ADD. The Tribunal’s decision not only provides clarity on the retrospective applicability of ADD but also highlights the need for administrative efficiency in finalizing provisional assessments.

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
March 13, 2026
CESTAT Delhi Quashes ₹1.73 Crore Customs Duty Demand
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 12.03.2026

CESTAT Delhi Quashes ₹1.73 Crore Customs Duty Demand

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 Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Motherson Sumi Wiring India Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Patparganj. The case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for customs duty, interest, and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs, Inland Container Depot, Patparganj.

Background of the Case

Motherson Sumi Wiring India Limited, a manufacturer of automotive wiring harnesses, had imported various plastic components such as clamps, clips, covers, stoppers, brackets, protectors, and adaptors between August 24, 2017, and May 31, 2019. These goods were classified under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 3926 90 99 and cleared for home consumption. However, the Commissioner of Customs issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on July 14, 2021, proposing a reclassification of the goods under CTI 8708 99 00, which would attract a higher customs duty and Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST). The Commissioner confirmed the demand for differential duty amounting to ₹1,73,58,467, along with interest under Section 28AA and an equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4).

Key Issues in the Case 

The case primarily revolved around two key issues:
1. Classification of Goods: The appellant argued that the imported goods were correctly classified under CTI 3926 90 99, while the department contended that they should be classified under CTI 8708 99 00, based on the goods’ principal use in automobiles.
2. Invocation of Extended Period of Limitation: The appellant challenged the invocation of the extended period of limitation, arguing that it was not justified as there was no collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts.
Arguments Presented

Appellant’s Submissions 

The appellant contended that the imported goods were correctly classified under CTI 3926 90 99, as they were plastic parts used in the manufacture of wiring harnesses for automobiles. The appellant argued that the dispute was purely a matter of interpretation of the customs tariff and did not involve any deliberate misstatement or suppression of facts. Therefore, the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) could not be invoked.

Respondent’s Submissions 

The department argued that the classification of similar goods had already been decided by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. Besmark Components Private Limited, where the goods were classified under CTI 8708. The department further alleged that the appellant had suppressed facts by not providing complete declarations in its Bills of Entry, thereby justifying the invocation of the extended period of limitation.

Tribunal’s Observations and Decision 

The Tribunal carefully examined the submissions and the records. It noted that the demand for duty under Section 28 can only be raised within the normal period of limitation unless there is evidence of collusion, willful misstatement, or suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that none of these factors were alleged or established in the impugned order. The dispute was purely a matter of interpretation of the customs tariff, and the appellant had not engaged in any deliberate wrongdoing.

The Tribunal emphasized that the entire period of demand was beyond the normal limitation period of two years. As a result, the invocation of the extended period of limitation was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order solely on the ground of limitation, without delving into the merits of the classification dispute.

Conclusion

The Tribunal’s decision in favor of Motherson Sumi Wiring India Limited underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the legal requirements for invoking the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act. The ruling highlights that disputes over tariff classification should not automatically lead to allegations of suppression or misstatement unless supported by concrete evidence.

This judgment serves as a reminder to both importers and the customs authorities to ensure transparency and compliance with the law while addressing classification disputes. It also reinforces the need for a clear and fair application of the extended period of limitation provisions under the Customs Act. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The Tribunal left the question of classification open for determination in future cases, ensuring that the matter could be revisited if necessary.

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
March 12, 2026
Madras High Court upholds CESTAT decision
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 12.03.2026

Madras High Court upholds CESTAT decision

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 Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in CMA No. 499 of 2026, dismissing the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VII Commissionerate, and upholding the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in favor of M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd. The case revolved around the issue of laches and the principles of natural justice, with the Court emphasizing the importance of timely adjudication in legal matters.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated in 2007 when M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd imported loose optical fiber cables and sought the benefit of a Customs Notification dated 01.03.2005. Upon scrutiny of the imported documents, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged misdeclaration of goods and issued a show-cause notice to the company on 12.03.2007, claiming that the goods needed to be reclassified.

The respondent promptly replied to the show-cause notice, but the Department took an unprecedented 13 years to pass the order-in-original. This delay led M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd to challenge the order before the CESTAT in Customs Appeal No. 40860 of 2021. The CESTAT ruled in favor of the respondent, citing the Department’s unexplained delay and the principles of laches.

Appeal to the Madras High Court 

The Commissioner of Customs filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (CMA No. 499 of 2026) before the Madras High Court, challenging the CESTAT’s decision. The Department argued that the pre-amended Section 28 of the Customs Act did not impose any limitation period for reassessment, and therefore, the delay should not have been a factor in rejecting the Department’s case. The Department further contended that remanding the matter back for reassessment would not prejudice the respondent.

Court’s Observations 

The case was heard by Hon’ble Justice. After carefully considering the submissions, the Court upheld the CESTAT’s decision, emphasizing the following key points:
1. Doctrine of Laches: The Court noted that the delay of 13 years in passing the order-in-original was excessive and unjustifiable. It held that the delay was solely attributable to the Department and not the respondent, who had promptly responded to the show-cause notice.
2. Principles of Natural Justice: The Court stressed that the CESTAT’s decision was in line with the principles of natural justice, which require fairness and timely resolution of disputes. The Court stated that keeping disputes perpetually open due to administrative delays would be contrary to these principles.
3. Legal Certainty: The Court highlighted the importance of legal certainty and the need to give a “quietus to the issue.” It emphasized that prolonged delays in adjudication undermine the credibility of the legal process and create unnecessary hardship for the parties involved.
4. No Substantial Question of Law: The Court found no substantial question of law that warranted interference with the CESTAT’s decision. It concluded that the reasons provided by the Tribunal were legally sound and consistent with established judicial principles.
Judgment

The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs and upheld the CESTAT’s decision in favor of M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd. The Court ruled that the Department’s appeal lacked merit and that the respondent was entitled to relief due to the Department’s failure to act within a reasonable timeframe.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and avoiding undue delays in legal proceedings. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder to government authorities to act promptly and responsibly in discharging their duties, as excessive delays can lead to the dismissal of their claims.

The case also highlights the significance of the doctrine of laches in ensuring fairness and legal certainty. By upholding the CESTAT’s decision, the Madras High Court has reinforced the principle that administrative inefficiency cannot be used to prejudice the rights of individuals or businesses.

Conclusion

The judgment in CMA No. 499 of 2026 is a landmark decision that reiterates the judiciary’s commitment to upholding fairness and accountability in legal proceedings. It serves as a precedent for similar cases where administrative delays have caused undue hardship to parties. The ruling is a victory for M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt Ltd and a reminder to government departments to prioritize timely and efficient resolution of disputes.

Source: Madras 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
March 12, 2026
CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand on Imported Coal
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 11.03.2026

CESTAT Chennai Sets Aside Customs Duty Demand on Imported Coal

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 Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy Commissionerate (Customs Appeal No. 42447 of 2015). The case revolved around the denial of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus (as amended by Notification No. 12/2012-Cus) for coal imported by M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. under Bill of Entry No. 5919332 dated 06.02.2012. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief.

Background of the Case

M/s. JSW Steel Ltd., engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel, imported Hard Coking Coal of Australian origin through Karaikal Port under six Bills of Entry between 30.08.2011 and 28.03.2012. The company declared the goods as “Coking Coal” under CTH 2701 19 10 and claimed exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Sl. No. 68 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The goods were provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, pending test reports.

Samples of the imported coal were sent to the Chemical Examiner at the Custom House, Chennai, who reported Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) above 1 but did not report Mean Reflectance (MR) due to the lack of testing facilities. Based on the CSN values from the Customs Laboratory and MR values from the load port surveyor’s certificate, the Assistant Commissioner finalized the provisional assessments and extended the exemption.

However, the Commissioner of Customs issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 13.06.2013, proposing denial of exemption for all six Bills of Entry. The SCN alleged that MR had not been ascertained from the Customs laboratory and that CSN values from the load port reports were unreliable. Subsequently, remnant samples were sent to the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), Dhanbad, which reported a CSN of 0.5 and MR of 1.59 for Bill of Entry No. 5919332. Based on this report, the Commissioner denied exemption for this specific Bill of Entry while dropping proceedings for the remaining five.

Aggrieved by the order, M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. filed an appeal before the CESTAT.

Key Issues for Determination 

The Tribunal identified two primary issues for consideration:
1. Whether the impugned order traveled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by relying upon CIMFR test reports not referred to therein. 
2. Whether the coal imported under Bill of Entry No. 5919332 satisfied the conditions of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended. 
Tribunal’s Observations and Findings 

1. Scope of the Show Cause Notice 

The Tribunal emphasized that adjudication must strictly adhere to the allegations and grounds contained in the Show Cause Notice, as it forms the foundation of the proceedings. Upon examining the SCN, the Tribunal noted that it did not reference the CIMFR reports, which were obtained after the issuance of the notice. The impugned order, however, relied heavily on these reports to deny the exemption.

The Tribunal referred to several landmark judgments, including CCE v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. (2007), CC v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (2006), and Caprihans India Ltd. v. CCE (2015), which establish that adjudication cannot introduce new grounds or evidence not mentioned in the SCN. The Tribunal held that the reliance on CIMFR reports, which were not part of the SCN, constituted a jurisdictional defect and rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable.

2. Satisfaction of Exemption Conditions 

The exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus required the coal to meet two conditions:
- Mean Reflectance (MR) above 0.60.
- Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) of 1 or above.
The Tribunal noted that contemporaneous evidence at the time of import included:
- A Certificate of Quality from ACIRL Quality Testing Services Pty Ltd, reporting CSN of 1.5 and MR of 1.75.
- A Test Report from the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Chennai, reporting CSN of 3.
Both reports confirmed that the imported coal met the exemption criteria. The Tribunal observed that the CIMFR report, which reported a CSN of 0.5, was conducted more than two years after the samples were drawn. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant’s argument that coal properties deteriorate over time due to oxidation and weathering, which could affect the CSN values. It also noted that the storage conditions of the remnant samples during this period were not recorded, raising doubts about the reliability of the CIMFR report.

The Tribunal referred to judgments such as Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India (1983), Ruchi Soya Industries (2006), and Godrej Industries Ltd. (2017), which establish that goods must be assessed in the condition they were imported and that belated testing cannot override contemporaneous evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the burden of proof for claiming exemption lies with the importer, and M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. had successfully discharged this burden through valid contemporaneous test reports.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal held that the coal imported under Bill of Entry No. 5919332 satisfied the exemption conditions under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as amended.

Final Decision

The CESTAT concluded that the impugned order had traveled beyond the scope of the Show Cause Notice by relying on CIMFR reports not referred to therein. Additionally, the Tribunal found that the imported coal met the exemption conditions based on contemporaneous evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original No. 01/2015 dated 10.09.2015 to the extent it denied exemption and confirmed the demand for differential duty and interest under Section 28 and Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

The appeal filed by M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. was allowed, and the company was granted consequential relief in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways
1. Adjudication Must Stay Within the Scope of the SCN: The Tribunal reaffirmed the principle that adjudication cannot introduce new grounds or evidence not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice.
2. Contemporaneous Evidence Prevails: The decision highlights the importance of assessing goods based on their condition at the time of import and relying on contemporaneous evidence over belated test reports.
3. Burden of Proof: While the burden of proving eligibility for exemption lies with the importer, valid contemporaneous evidence can effectively discharge this burden.
Source: CESTAT Chennai

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
March 11, 2026