ALO Partners Logo

𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #CESTATMumbai

  • CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside RSP Re-determination in Ceramic Tiles

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside RSP Re-determination in Ceramic Tiles

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside RSP Re-determination in Ceramic Tiles

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the recovery of differential duty and penalties imposed on M/s Padma Ceramics Pvt Ltd, M/s RAS International, and their director, in connection with the import of ceramic tiles. The case, which revolved around the alleged under-reporting of the retail selling price (RSP) of imported goods, highlights critical aspects of customs law and the limits of authority vested in customs officers. ​

    Background of the Case

    The proceedings stemmed from the import of ceramic tiles between June 2003 and September 2005. ​ The Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, had passed orders imposing duty liabilities of ₹44,66,124 on M/s Padma Ceramics Pvt Ltd and ₹98,48,522 on M/s RAS International under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ Additionally, penalties of ₹10,00,000 and ₹20,00,000 were imposed on Appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The goods were also held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The crux of the case was the allegation that the appellants had under-reported the RSP of the imported tiles, which formed the basis for calculating the additional duty of customs under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. ​ The customs authorities argued that subsequent evidence revealed higher prices at which the tiles were sold to consumers, justifying the recovery of differential duty.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Quashes ₹3.09 Crore Customs Duty Demand on Forklift Parts

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes ₹3.09 Crore Customs Duty Demand on Forklift Parts

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.10.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes ₹3.09 Crore Customs Duty Demand on Forklift Parts

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a demand for differential customs duty and penalties imposed on Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Pvt Ltd and other appellants. ​ The case revolved around the import of forklift parts and the applicability of additional duties of customs under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from the import of forklift parts by Jungheinrich Lift Truck India Pvt Ltd between June 2014 and June 2017 through the Air Cargo Complex (ACC), Mumbai, and Jawaharlal Nehru Customs House (JNCH), Nhava Sheva. ​ The customs authorities had re-determined the value of the imported goods and demanded a differential duty of ₹3.09 crore for imports through ACC and ₹7.75 lakh for imports through JNCH. ​ Additionally, penalties were imposed under Sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    The crux of the issue was whether the imported forklift parts were subject to the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, which mandate the declaration of a “retail sale price (RSP)” for pre-packaged commodities. ​ The customs authorities argued that the goods were liable for additional duties based on the RSP, while the appellants contended that the goods were not pre-packaged commodities intended for retail sale.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai set aside the revised assessable value

    CESTAT Mumbai set aside the revised assessable value

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai set aside the revised assessable value

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

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the revision of assessable value in the case of Nilkamal Limited. This judgment, delivered on September 29, 2025, highlights critical issues surrounding the valuation of imported goods under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. The case revolved around the rejection of declared values for imported wooden furniture and sofa sets from Malaysia and China, and the subsequent reassessment by customs authorities. ​

    Background of the Case

    Nilkamal Limited imported consignments of wooden furniture and sofa sets from Malaysia and China between September and November 2012. ​ The customs authorities rejected the declared transaction values, citing lack of comparability with contemporaneous imports. ​ They revised the assessable value using a “price factor” based on the weight of the furniture, which was derived from the unit quantity code (UQC) specified in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. This reassessment was challenged by Nilkamal Limited, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Duty Demand on Redeployed Project Imports

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

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals concerning the classification and treatment of goods imported under the “Project Imports” category. This decision, pronounced on September 19, 2025, sheds light on the complexities surrounding the Customs Act, 1962, and the Project Imports Regulations, 1986, while addressing the rights and obligations of importers and customs authorities.

    Background of the Case

    The appeals were filed by M/s Era Infra Engineering Ltd, M/s Aravali Power Company Pvt Ltd, and individuals associated with these entities. ​ The dispute revolved around the import of five piling rigs valued at ₹10,98,98,857 for the Indira Gandhi Super Thermal Power Project in Jhajjar, a mega power project. ​ The applicable customs duty of ₹3,27,47,724 was exempted under a notification, as the goods were classified under heading 9801 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which pertains to “Project Imports.” ​

    After completing the project, the rigs were redeployed to another mega power project. ​ Customs authorities initiated proceedings, alleging that the exemption was specific to the original project and that the transfer breached conditions outlined in a circular. ​ Consequently, they demanded recovery of the exempted duty, imposed penalties, and confiscated the rigs, allowing redemption upon payment of ₹2,00,00,000.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

    CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Ruled that the charges against Appellant were baseless

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, dismissed the appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II), Mumbai, against Appellant. The Tribunal upheld the original adjudication order, which had cleared the respondent of any contravention under the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision not only reinforces the principles of judicial discipline but also highlights the importance of adhering to due process in customs-related disputes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The case originated from a show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962, concerning the import of coal by M/s Reliance Infrastructure Ltd and M/s Rosa Power Supply Co Ltd. ​ The notice alleged undervaluation of goods and sought penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act. ​ Appellant, a director of Century Exports Ltd, was named as an incidental noticee, despite having no direct involvement in the processing of the imported goods. ​

    The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai, had earlier dropped the proceedings against the principal noticees and auxiliary parties, including Appellant, citing a lack of evidence. ​ However, the Commissioner of Customs (Import-II) appealed this decision before the Tribunal, seeking penalties against the respondent.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.09.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Certificates of Origin for Gold and Diamond Imports from Thailand​ ​ ​ ​ ​

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

    The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a landmark judgment addressing the contentious issue of preferential duty claims on imports of gold and diamond-studded jewelry from Thailand. This decision, pronounced on August 29, 2023, has significant implications for importers, customs authorities, and international trade agreements.

    Background of the Case

    The appeals arose from disputes over the validity of preferential duty claims under Notification No. ​ 85/2004-Cus dated August 31, 2004, which provides reduced customs duty rates for goods originating from Thailand. The importers had furnished Certificates of Origin (COO) issued by the designated authority in Thailand to claim these benefits. ​ However, customs authorities questioned the authenticity of these certificates, alleging non-compliance with the “value addition” requirement stipulated under the Interim Rules of Origin. ​

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) conducted investigations, leading to orders demanding differential duties and imposing penalties under Sections 28, 114A, and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ The importers challenged these orders, arguing that the certificates were valid and issued by the competent authority in Thailand.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Late Filing Charges of Bill of entry

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.09.2025

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

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

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside charges for late filing of a bill of entry against Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd. ​ The case, which revolved around procedural lapses in the customs clearance process, highlights the importance of accountability in the electronic customs system and the responsibilities of customs authorities. ​

    Case Background

    Titanium Ten Enterprises Ltd, a Surat-based company, had imported 100% polyester filament yarn and filed an advance bill of entry (No. 6359527/06.01.2020) as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ However, due to an issue in the Indian Customs Electronic System (ICES), the advance bill of entry was not regularized, compelling the company to file a fresh bill of entry (No. ​ 7080859/02.03.2020). ​ This delay led to the imposition of late filing charges amounting to ₹4,33,446. ​ The company challenged the charges, arguing that the delay was caused by a system error beyond their control. ​

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

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

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

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.09.2025

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

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

    ​

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

    Background of the Case

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    CESTAT Mumbai Orders Refund of Double Customs Duty

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

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

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

    Background of the Case ​

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Deny DFIA and AA Exemptions Once DGFT Confirms Export Obligation

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Deny DFIA and AA Exemptions Once DGFT Confirms Export Obligation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 16.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs Cannot Deny DFIA and AA Exemptions Once DGFT Confirms Export Obligation

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on M/s. ​ Tejus, a Surat-based importer, in connection with alleged misuse of Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) and Advance Authorization (AA) schemes. ​ The case, which revolved around the interpretation of export obligation and post-importation conditions, has brought clarity to the jurisdictional limits of Customs authorities in such matters. ​

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Tejus, holding Import Export Code (IEC) No. ​ 349001499, had obtained DFIA and AA licenses for importing polyester filament yarn (PFY) and textured filament yarn (TFY). ​ The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the company had diverted imported goods to the local market without fulfilling the actual user conditions. ​ Following an investigation, the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Raigad, confirmed a duty demand of ₹5.21 crore, along with penalties and redemption fines, citing violations of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the Customs authorities lacked jurisdiction to demand duty once the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) was issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). ​ The appellant relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, which held that Customs authorities cannot refuse exemptions based on allegations of misrepresentation if the licensing authority has not questioned the validity of the license.

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com