ALO Partners Logo

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

Tag: #CESTATKolkata

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

    CESTAT Kolkata said that the extended limitation period was not invokable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.09.2025

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

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the demand for differential duty, redemption fine, and penalty against M/s. ​ Thales India Private Limited. ​ The case revolved around the classification of imported goods and the invocation of the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision highlights the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the implications of procedural lapses in customs adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.09.2025

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

     This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

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

    Background of the Case

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Rules Quicklime Classifiable under CTH 2522

    CESTAT Kolkata Rules Quicklime Classifiable under CTH 2522

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Rules Quicklime Classifiable under CTH 2522​ ​

    Β 

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    ​

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

    Background of the Case

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 29.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Penalty on Customs Broker

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

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

    Background of the Case

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    CESTAT Kolkata Set Aside Interest Demand on Provisional Refunds

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.08.2025

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that provides relief to M/s. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd. (GCPL) in a long-standing dispute over provisional refunds and interest liability. ​ The case revolved around the refund of excise duty under area-based exemption notifications and the subsequent demand for interest on provisional refunds sanctioned to the company. This decision sets a precedent for similar cases and highlights the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. ​

    Background of the Case

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

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

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 22.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Protects Importer Rights in Valuation and Classification Dispute ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside the impugned order against M/s Swastik Stockists and Traders Pvt. Ltd. and its late director, Appellant. ​ The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation and misclassification of imported goods, including carpets, multimedia speakers, and blankets, leading to demands for differential customs duties, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. ​ This decision marks a pivotal moment in the interpretation of customs laws and the burden of proof in such cases. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s Swastik Stockists and Traders Pvt. ​ Ltd., imported multiple consignments of carpets, speakers, and blankets between 2011 and 2014. While most consignments were cleared without objections, one consignment of speakers was detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) during an investigation. ​ The DRI alleged undervaluation and misclassification of goods, issuing a Show Cause Notice in 2014 and confirming demands in an adjudication order in 2017.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Gold Confiscation

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Gold Confiscation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Overturns Gold Confiscation​ ​ ​

    In a pivotal judgment, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has quashed the confiscation of 20 gold biscuits weighing 3320 grams and a Maruti van, along with penalties imposed on two appellants. ​ This case, which revolved around allegations of gold smuggling, has set a significant precedent in the interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly concerning the burden of proof and the legality of seizures. ​

    The Case at a Glance

    On July 24, 2015, personnel from the 24th Assam Rifles intercepted a Maruti van on the Imphal-Moreh highway and discovered 20 gold biscuits hidden in a secret compartment. ​ The gold, valued at β‚Ή83,00,000, was suspected to be of foreign origin and handed over to Customs Preventive officers. ​ The driver claimed he was merely transporting the gold for an unknown individual. ​ Subsequently, Appellant, a registered jeweler, claimed ownership of the gold, presenting tax invoices from M/s Sangham Diamonds Pvt. ​ Ltd., Mumbai, as evidence of lawful purchase. ​

    The Customs authorities, however, alleged that the gold bore foreign markings (“THOON”) and was smuggled into India. ​ They confiscated the gold and the vehicle under Sections 111(b), 111(d), and 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties of β‚Ή8,00,000 each on the appellants.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata- Under Valuation and Confiscation set aside as it was legally unsustainable

    CESTAT Kolkata- Under Valuation and Confiscation set aside as it was legally unsustainable

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata- Under Valuation and Confiscation set aside as it was legally unsustainable ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Eastern Zonal Bench, Kolkata, has set aside demands for differential customs duty, penalties, and confiscation orders against M/s. ​ Gemini Metal Corporation and Appellant. This decision, pronounced on August 7, 2025, highlights the importance of procedural compliance and evidentiary standards in customs investigations.

    Background of the Case

    The case revolved around allegations of undervaluation of imported goodsβ€”Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Coilsβ€”by M/s. ​ Gemini Metal Corporation (Appellant 1). ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) claimed that invoices retrieved from the mobile phone of Mr. ​ Deepak Jindal (Appellant 2) indicated higher import values than those declared by Appellant 1. Based on these invoices, the authorities demanded differential customs duty of Rs. ​ 2.45 crore, along with interest and penalties, and imposed penalties on Mr. Jindal under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Interest Liability in Provisional Customs Assessments

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Interest Liability in Provisional Customs Assessments

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Interest Liability in Provisional Customs Assessments ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has delivered a judgment that clarifies the applicability of interest liability under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, in cases of provisional customs assessments. The decision, pronounced on August 5, 2025, in the case of M/s NHPC Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, addresses key issues surrounding the retrospective application of interest provisions and penalties in customs law.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, NHPC Limited, a public sector undertaking under the Ministry of Power, imported equipment and spare parts for the Teesta Hydroelectric Project in Sikkim between April 2004 and April 2008. These imports were provisionally assessed under Section 18(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and classified under CTH 9801, availing a NIL rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD). ​ However, the Department later issued a show-cause notice in May 2019, alleging that the value of spare parts imported exceeded 10% of the value of the main equipment, violating the conditions of the customs notification. ​ Consequently, differential duty was demanded, along with interest and penalties.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Betel Nut Origin Dispute

    CESTAT Kolkata Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Betel Nut Origin Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 02.08.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Dismisses Revenue Appeal in Betel Nut Origin Dispute ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, dismissed appeals filed by the Revenue in a case involving alleged fraudulent import of betel nuts. ​ The case, which revolved around mis-declaration of the country of origin and undervaluation of goods, highlights the complexities of international trade and customs regulations. ​ Here’s a detailed look at the case and the tribunal’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, initiated investigations based on specific intelligence, appellant was involved in fraudulent imports of betel nuts under the Import-Export Code (IEC) of M/s S. Krishna & Co. ​ The betel nuts, allegedly of Indonesian origin, were routed through Bangladesh to evade customs duties by misusing the SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) benefits under Notification No. ​ 105/1999.

    The investigation revealed that Bangladesh-based firms were re-exporting betel nuts without any processing, falsely claiming them as products of Bangladesh. ​ Additionally, the goods were grossly undervalued, with actual values ranging from USD 1400 to USD 1750 PMT, while declared values were between USD 300 and USD 450 PMT. ​ Evidence, including email correspondences and statements, pointed to a network involving Indian importers, Bangladeshi firms, and an Indonesian broker.

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate Delhi High Court based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com