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: #CESTATMumbai

  • CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Reclassification of Scrap and Orders Refund with Interest

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Reclassification of Scrap and Orders Refund with Interest

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 13.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes Customs Reclassification of Scrap and Orders Refund with Interest ​ ​ ​

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has delivered justice to M/s. Shreem Worldwide Private Limited, an importer who faced significant penalties and fines due to the reclassification of their imported goods. ​ The case, which revolved around the classification and valuation of imported “Heavy Melting Scrap,” highlights the importance of expert opinions and adherence to established legal principles in customs disputes. ​

    Background of the Case

    The dispute began when M/s. Shreem Worldwide Private Limited imported a consignment of “Heavy Melting Scrap” from the UAE, declaring its value as β‚Ή19,42,688/- and paying the applicable duty of β‚Ή3,27,429/-. ​ However, upon examination by Docks Officials, the goods were reclassified as “serviceable used iron pipes, rusted and corroded,” leading to a reassessment of their value and imposition of a redemption fine of β‚Ή3,00,000/- and a penalty of β‚Ή50,000/-. ​ The importer contested this decision, citing a Chartered Engineer’s report that certified the pipes as discarded and unserviceable in their present form. ​ Despite this expert opinion, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order, prompting the importer to escalate the matter to 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 authorities cannot overstep their jurisdiction by questioning MEIS benefits without the DGFT’s intervention

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs authorities cannot overstep their jurisdiction by questioning MEIS benefits without the DGFT’s intervention

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 12.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- Customs authorities cannot overstep their jurisdiction by questioning MEIS benefits without the DGFT’s intervention

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Heranba Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, NS-II, Nhava Sheva. This case revolved around the classification of exported goods under the Merchandise Export India Scheme (MEIS) and the jurisdiction of customs authorities to demand recovery of export benefits. ​ The Tribunal’s decision not only clarified the scope of jurisdiction under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) but also reinforced the principles of limitation in adjudication proceedings.

    Background of the Case

    Heranba Industries Ltd., a manufacturer of pesticides and insecticides, exported products under the MEIS scheme, claiming benefits at 3% of the Free on Board (FOB) value based on their classification under specific tariff headings (CTH 38089910/38089990). ​ The Directorate General of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) later alleged misclassification, claiming the products should have been classified under different headings (CTH 38086100/38086200/38086900), which were either ineligible for MEIS benefits or entitled to a lower rate of 2%. ​

    The customs authorities issued two separate show cause notices (SCNs) for overlapping periods, invoking the extended period of limitation and demanding recovery of MEIS benefits. ​ The second SCN, issued by SIIB, became the subject of this appeal.

    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 Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Sets Aside Time-Barred Duty Demand ​ ​​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a duty demand of Rs. 16,54,073/- along with interest imposed on JSW Steel Ltd by the Commissioner of Customs, Panaji, Goa. ​ The case revolved around the legality of a corrigendum issued years after the original Show Cause Notice (SCN), raising questions about the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. ​ This decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and procedural accuracy in customs adjudication. ​

    Background of the Case

    JSW Steel Ltd had exported Hot Rolled Non-Alloy Steel Coils and Cold Rolled Close Annealed Non-Alloy Wide Coils between April 10, 2008, and May 9, 2008. ​ A notification issued on May 10, 2008, amended the duty rates for these goods to 15% and 10%, respectively, which were previously exempt from duty. ​ While most shipping bills were cleared before the notification date, five shipping bills were cleared on May 10, 2008, leading to a demand for additional duty. ​

    The original SCN was issued on October 3, 2008, but lacked reference to the specific provision of the Customs Act under which the demand was raised. A corrigendum was issued on April 11, 2013, invoking Section 28 of the Customs Act and substantially altering the content of the original notice, including changes to the description and quantity of goods.

    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 Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation

    CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Clarifies Scope of Section 117 Customs Act in Export Documentation ​  

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set aside a penalty of β‚Ή2,00,000/- imposed on M/s Ajanta Pharma Ltd. under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolved around alleged mis-declaration in Airway Bills for 43 consignments of pharmaceutical products exported between September 2018 and March 2021. ​ This decision highlights the importance of adhering to legal provisions and ensuring due process in penalty imposition. ​

    Background of the Case

    Ajanta Pharma Ltd., a prominent pharmaceutical exporter, faced allegations of mis-declaration in Airway Bills, where the goods were described as “medical apparatus” instead of their actual descriptionβ€”Erectile Dysfunction Medicines such as Kamagra Oral Jelly, Super Kamagra Tablets, and Kamagra Gold Tablets. ​ While the shipping bills, invoices, and packing lists contained accurate descriptions, the discrepancy in Airway Bills led the Customs Department to impose a penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​

    The penalty was challenged by Ajanta Pharma Ltd., arguing that the alleged contravention pertained to provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20, not the Customs Act. ​ The company contended that no violation of the Customs Act was established, making the penalty unsustainable.

    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- Refund of Encashed Bank Guarantee Not Subject to Limitation Under Section 27

    CESTAT Mumbai- Refund of Encashed Bank Guarantee Not Subject to Limitation Under Section 27

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.08.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai- Refund of Encashed Bank Guarantee Not Subject to Limitation Under Section 27 ​ ​

    In a significant ruling, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has set a precedent in the case of Oswal Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import). The Tribunal addressed the critical issue of whether a bank guarantee encashed by the Revenue during the pendency of an appeal can be treated as “payment of duty” under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. ​ This decision has far-reaching implications for businesses dealing with customs disputes and provisional releases.

    Background of the Case

    Oswal Industries Limited had imported goods in 2003, which were provisionally released against a bond and a bank guarantee of Rs. ​ 10 lakhs. ​ A dispute arose, leading to a demand for customs duty, which was confirmed by the Order-in-Original in 2006. ​ During the pendency of Oswal’s appeal before the Tribunal, the Revenue encashed the bank guarantee and deposited the amount in the government treasury. ​

    In 2016, the Tribunal ruled in favor of Oswal Industries, setting aside the demand for customs duty. Subsequently, Oswal filed an application for a refund of the encashed bank guarantee. ​ However, the refund application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority and later by the Commissioner (Appeals), citing the limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

    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 Quashes β‚Ή4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Quashes β‚Ή4.6 Crore Anti-Dumping Duty Demand

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Neo Wheels Ltd. and its representatives, in a case concerning alleged evasion of anti-dumping duty on aluminum alloy wheels imported from China. The judgment, delivered on July 24, 2025, brings clarity to the complex issue of anti-dumping duty and the validity of certificates of origin.

    Background of the Case

    Neo Wheels Ltd., a manufacturer of alloy wheels, imports semi-finished aluminum alloy wheels from Taiwan. The case arose from allegations that the company had routed imports through Taiwan to evade anti-dumping duty imposed on aluminum alloy wheels originating from China. ​ The anti-dumping duty was provisionally imposed in 2014 and later definitively imposed in 2015 at USD 2.15 per KG.

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation, scrutinizing 30 bills of entry filed by Neo Wheels Ltd. between December 5, 2014, and February 5, 2017. ​ The investigation alleged that the company had misdeclared the country of origin and evaded anti-dumping duty amounting to Rs. 4.62 crore. ​ Penalties were also proposed against the company and its representatives.

    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 Allows Customs Duty Exemption for Medical Implants

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Customs Duty Exemption for Medical Implants

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Customs Duty Exemption for Medical Implants ​

    In a landmark decision, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has ruled in favor of Smith & Nephew Healthcare Private Limited, allowing their appeal against the denial of customs duty exemption on imported medical implants. This decision, pronounced on July 21, 2025, sets a significant precedent for the interpretation of exemption notifications under the Customs Act, 1962.

    Background of the Case

    Smith & Nephew Healthcare, a leading supplier of orthopedic and medical appliances, had been importing knee and hip implants, among other medical devices, under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 9021 3100 and 9021 1000. ​ They claimed customs duty exemption under Serial No. ​ 578 of Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs dated June 30, 2017, and Notification No. ​ 01/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated June 28, 2017. ​ These exemptions were intended for assistive devices, rehabilitation aids, and other goods for disabled persons. ​

    However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the imported goods were not exclusively used for disabled persons, as required by the exemption notification. ​ Following an investigation, the Commissioner of Customs denied the exemption, demanded differential duty of over Rs. ​ 210 crore, and imposed penalties and fines. ​

    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 Allows Conversion of 1767 Shipping Bills Beyond 3-Year Limit

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Conversion of 1767 Shipping Bills Beyond 3-Year Limit

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 21.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Allows Conversion of 1767 Shipping Bills Beyond 3-Year Limit

    Background

    ADF Foods Ltd., a leading exporter of pickles, namkeens, and chutneys, approached the Commissioner of Customs (NS-II), Nhava Sheva seeking conversion of 2463 shipping bills from the Drawback Scheme to the Duty-Free Import Authorization (DFIA) Scheme under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    While the Commissioner allowed conversion for 696 shipping bills, conversion for the remaining 1767 shipping bills was rejected on the ground of being beyond 3 years from the date of exportβ€”by invoking Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

    Key Issues

    1. Whether a time limit of 3 years can be imposed on conversion under Section 149 of the Customs Act?
    2. Whether conversion is impermissible if benefit of the original export scheme (Drawback) has already been availed?
    3. Whether procedural barriers in circulars can override statutory provisions?

    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 Set Aside the Confiscation and Penalties in Warehousing Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Set Aside the Confiscation and Penalties in Warehousing Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Set Aside the Confiscation and Penalties in Warehousing Dispute

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai set aside the confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on Akshay Logistics, a licensed public warehouse operator under Section 57 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    This decision not only provides relief to the appellant but also offers critical judicial interpretation on warehousing compliance, penalty provisions, and the scope of customs powers in bonded warehousing operations.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose after customs officials visited the appellant’s premises between 28 August and 5 September 2023, alleging various infractions including improper storage and violation of warehousing conditions. This led to the confiscation of goods worth β‚Ή9.36 crores under Section 111(j) and imposition of penalties under Sections 112 and 117 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 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 Rejected Revenue Appeals and Upholds SAD Refund

    CESTAT Mumbai Rejected Revenue Appeals and Upholds SAD Refund

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Rejected Revenue Appeals and Upholds SAD Refund

    Background of the Case

    Ram Ratna Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. imported goods on which they paid 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. These goods were subsequently sold on payment of Value Added Tax (VAT). The company filed two refund applications:

    • β‚Ή12,06,790/- and
    • β‚Ή2,59,343/-

    claiming refund of SAD paid, supported by CA certificates confirming that the burden of duty had not been passed on to the buyer. The original adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the ground of unjust enrichment. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund, holding that the company was entitled to it and no unjust enrichment had occurred.

    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