ALS

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

Tag: #Customs

  • Madras HC Quashes GST Assessment Order: Importance of Effective Notice Service and Natural Justice in Tax Proceedings

    Madras HC Quashes GST Assessment Order: Importance of Effective Notice Service and Natural Justice in Tax Proceedings

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 11.07.2026

    Madras HC Quashes GST Assessment Order: Importance of Effective Notice Service and Natural Justice in Tax Proceedings

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

    A recent judgment by the Madras High Court has brought to light critical procedural issues in GST assessment, particularly regarding the service of notices and the rights of taxpayers. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its background, the legal arguments, and the implications for both taxpayers and tax authorities.

    Background of the Case

    The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders, challenged an assessment order and subsequent bank attachment issued by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chidambaram, under the GST regime. The core issue was whether the service of notices solely through the GST Portalβ€”specifically under the ‘View Additional Notices/Orders’ columnβ€”constituted sufficient and effective service as required by law.

    Key Facts

    1. Issuance of Notices: The tax department issued a show cause notice and several reminders to the petitioner, all uploaded under an unusual column in the GST Portal.
    2. Petitioner’s Claim: The petitioner, unfamiliar with the portal’s structure and being illiterate in computer operations, did not notice these communications. Only upon receiving a bank attachment notice did the petitioner become aware of the proceedings.
    3. Department’s Stand: The department argued that uploading notices on the GST Portal is a valid mode of service under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, and that taxpayers are expected to engage practitioners if they lack technical knowledge.

    Legal Issues Examined

    1. Sufficiency of Service via GST Portal

    Section 169 of the CGST Act lists several modes for serving notices, including direct delivery, registered post, email, and making notices available on the common portal. The court observed:

    • While online service is legally valid, it may not be effective for all assessees, especially those lacking technical skills or awareness of portal nuances.
    • If a taxpayer does not respond to online notices, authorities should consider alternative modes, such as registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure actual receipt and adherence to natural justice.

    2. Principles of Natural Justice

    The court emphasized that passing ex parte orders without ensuring the taxpayer’s awareness and opportunity to respond violates the principles of natural justice. In this case, the petitioner was deprived of a fair chance to reply or appear for a hearing due to ineffective service.

    Court’s Decision and Directions

    The High Court set aside the assessment order and bank attachment, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Key directions included:

    1. Fresh Opportunity: The petitioner must be given a clear notice and a personal hearing.
    2. Mode of Service: The department should use RPAD or other effective modes if online service does not elicit a response.
    3. Bank Attachment: The bank account should be de-frozen following the quashing of the assessment order.

    Implications for Taxpayers and Authorities

    For Taxpayers:

    • Stay vigilant about all sections of the GST Portal, including ‘View Additional Notices/Orders’.
    • Engage a GST practitioner or consultant if unfamiliar with online processes.
    • Respond promptly to any notices to avoid ex parte orders and recovery actions.

    For Tax Authorities:

    • Ensure notices are served through effective means, especially if online communication fails.
    • Adhere strictly to the principles of natural justice by providing real opportunities for taxpayers to respond.
    • Consider the taxpayer’s background and technical capabilities when choosing the mode of service.

    Conclusion

    This judgment underscores the importance of effective communication and procedural fairness in tax administration. Both taxpayers and authorities must adapt to technological advancements while ensuring that legal rights and obligations are respected. The court’s guidance on service of notice aims to balance efficiency with fairness, reducing unnecessary litigation and safeguarding the interests of all parties involved.

    Connecter Matter

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Rs. 1 Crore Penalty in Areca Nut Diversion

    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

  • High Court of Punjab & Haryana Sets Aside Excise Order for Non-Compliance with Section 9D

    High Court of Punjab & Haryana Sets Aside Excise Order for Non-Compliance with Section 9D

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 10.07.2026

    High Court of Punjab & Haryana Sets Aside Excise Order for Non-Compliance with Section 9D

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

    Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, plays a pivotal role in determining the admissibility of statements recorded during investigations by Central Excise Officers. The recent judgment in G-Tech Industries v. Union of India by the Punjab and Haryana High Court provides crucial clarity on the procedural requirements and legal standards for relying on such statements in adjudication proceedings.

    Background of the Case

    M/s G-Tech Industries challenged an order confirming a substantial demand of differential Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalty. The core of their challenge was that the adjudicating authority had relied on statements recorded under Section 14 of the Act without adhering to the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 9D.

    What Does Section 9D Say?

    Section 9D outlines when and how statements made before a gazetted Central Excise Officer can be used as evidence:

    • Clause (a): The statement is admissible if the person who made it is dead, cannot be found, is incapable of giving evidence, is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or cannot be produced without unreasonable delay or expense.
    • Clause (b): If none of the above apply, the person must be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority, who must then decide if the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice.

    Key Judicial Findings

    1. Mandatory Compliance with Section 9D

    The Court emphasized that the procedure in Section 9D(1) is mandatory for both criminal and adjudication proceedings. Statements cannot be used as evidence unless the specific conditions in clauses (a) or (b) are met.

    2. Procedure Under Clause (b)

    If the person is available, the adjudicating authority must:

    1. Examine the person as a witness in the proceeding.
    2. Form a written opinion, based on circumstances, that admitting the statement is in the interests of justice.

    This ensures that statements potentially made under coercion or compulsion during investigation are scrutinized in a fair setting, with the opportunity for cross-examination.

    3. Consequences of Non-Compliance

    If the adjudicating authority relies on statements without following Section 9D, such reliance is legally flawed. The statements must be excluded from consideration, and any order based on them is vitiated.

    4. Right to Cross-Examination

    The assessee must be given the opportunity to cross-examine the makers of any statements relied upon. This is a fundamental principle of natural justice, reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in several cases.

    Practical Steps for Adjudicating Authorities

    The judgment provides a clear roadmap:

    1. If relying on statements:
      • Summon the makers for examination-in-chief before the adjudicating authority.
      • Provide the assessee with a copy of the examination-in-chief.
      • Allow the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses if requested.
    2. If the makers are unavailable for reasons in clause (a):
      • Pass a reasoned, written order explaining why clause (a) applies.
      • Such an order can be challenged by the assessee.
    3. Statements not meeting these criteria:
      • Must be excluded from evidence and cannot be relied upon.

    Impact of the Judgment

    The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, strictly directing compliance with Section 9D and principles of natural justice. This judgment reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in revenue adjudication and protects assessees from arbitrary reliance on untested statements.

    Conclusion

    The G-Tech Industries judgment is a significant reaffirmation of due process in excise adjudication. It ensures that statements recorded during investigations are only used as evidence when statutory procedures are meticulously followed, upholding fairness and transparency in tax administration.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Smuggling Penalty

    Source: Punjab & Haryana 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

  • CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Rs. 1 Crore Penalty in Areca Nut Diversion

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Rs. 1 Crore Penalty in Areca Nut Diversion

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 10.07.2026

    CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Rs. 1 Crore Penalty in Areca Nut Diversion

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

    A recent decision by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad, has set a significant precedent in customs law enforcement. The tribunal overturned a Rs. 1 crore penalty imposed on Shri Altaf Ahmed, who was accused of involvement in the alleged diversion of duty-free imported Areca Nuts. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the tribunal’s reasoning, and its broader implications.

    Background of the Case

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation into M/s. Global Enterprises for allegedly diverting imported Areca Nuts, warehoused in KASEZ (Kandla Special Economic Zone), into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) without payment of customs duty. The department claimed that the goods, originally rejected by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), were transferred under the guise of SEZ-to-warehouse movement using expired space certificates and incorrect documentation.

    Shri Altaf Ahmed was implicated as an active partner in this alleged diversion, accused of facilitating the transfer and benefiting through commissions. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, imposed penalties totaling Rs. 1 crore under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Grounds for Appeal

    Altaf Ahmed, through legal counsel, challenged the penalties on several grounds:

    1. Lack of Evidence:
      • No goods were recovered from his possession.
      • No incriminating documents or statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act established his involvement.
      • No evidence showed he handled, transported, financed, stored, purchased, sold, or dealt with the goods.
    2. Procedural Violations:
      • No Show Cause Notice was served or even addressed to him, violating principles of natural justice.
      • The department relied on statements and documents that did not attribute any active role to him.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    The CESTAT bench, made several key observations:

    1. Absence of Show Cause Notice

    • The tribunal found that no Show Cause Notice was issued or addressed to Altaf Ahmed, nor was his name mentioned as a noticee.
    • There was no provision under the Customs Act at the relevant time for uploading such notices on a portal, unlike the GST Act.
    • Imposing a penalty without affording an opportunity to be heard was deemed a violation of natural justice.

    2. No Credible Evidence

    • The department failed to produce any transport documents, invoices, bank transactions, or correspondence linking Altaf Ahmed to the alleged diversion.
    • No witnesses, including truck drivers, warehouse operators, importers, or customs brokers, implicated him.
    • The statements relied upon did not attribute any active role or establish mens rea (guilty intent).

    3. Misapplication of Customs Act Provisions

    • Section 112(a): Requires proof of an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation. No such act was specified.
    • Section 112(b): Applies when a person knowingly deals with goods liable to confiscation. No evidence showed such involvement.
    • Section 114AA: Relates to knowingly making or using false declarations or documents. No such act was attributed to the appellant.
    • Mere association as a Director of a company involved was insufficient for personal liability without proof of active participation.

    Final Order and Implications

    The tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 1 crore imposed on Altaf Ahmed, allowing his appeal. The decision underscores the importance of:

    • Adhering to due process and principles of natural justice in customs enforcement.
    • The necessity for concrete evidence before imposing severe penalties.
    • The distinction between mere association with an entity and active involvement in alleged violations.

    Conclusion

    This CESTAT ruling serves as a reminder that enforcement actions must be grounded in solid evidence and proper procedure. The case of Altaf Ahmed highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual rights against arbitrary penalties and reinforces the standards for imposing liability under the Customs Act.

    Source: CESTAT Ahmedabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court Classified Car Seat Covers as Accessories

    Supreme Court Classified Car Seat Covers as Accessories

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.07.2026

    Supreme Court Classified Car Seat Covers as Accessories

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

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Mehra Bros. v. Joint Commercial Officer, Madras addresses a crucial question for automobile businesses and consumers: Are car seat covers considered accessories of motor vehicles under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and thus subject to a higher sales tax rate?

    Background of the Case

    Mehra Bros., a registered dealer, manufactured and sold auto seat covers and upholstery made from leather, plastic cloth, and other materials. For the years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the company reported taxable turnovers of Rs. 2,61,812.74 and Rs. 1,31,650.05, respectively.

    The company argued that car seat covers should be taxed at a lower rate of 3.5%, but tax authorities levied a 13% sales tax, treating them as accessories under Section 3(3) and Item 3 of Schedule I of the Act. This higher tax rate was upheld by the Assistant Commissioner, the Appellate Tribunal, and the High Court, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

    Key Legal Arguments

    Appellant’s Position (Mehra Bros.)

    1. Not Accessories: Car seat covers and upholstery are not accessories to automobiles.
    2. Convenience Test: Only those accessories that are convenient for the use of the vehicle as a whole should be taxed at the higher rate.
    3. Precedents Cited: Relied on previous judgments such as Supreme Motors v. State of Karnataka and Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. v. Free India Cycle Industries.

    Respondent’s Position (Tax Authorities)

    1. Broad Definition: Accessories include anything that aids, adds convenience, or is supplementary to any part of the vehicle, even if not essential for the vehicle’s overall use.
    2. Market Test: If an article is sold in automobile markets as an accessory, it should be treated as such for tax purposes.
    3. Precedents Cited: Relied on cases like Khetty Traders v. State of Madras and S.M. Brothers v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes.

    Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision

    The Supreme Court established several key tests to determine whether an article is an accessory:

    1. Adjunct or Addition Test: Is the article an adjunct, accompaniment, or addition for the convenient use of another part of the vehicle, or does it add to the beauty, elegance, or comfort of the vehicle?
    2. General Adaptability: While general adaptability for use in vehicles is relevant, it is not conclusive.
    3. Market Availability: If an article is manufactured and sold specifically for use in vehicles, it is likely an accessory.
    4. Legislative Intent: The law does not require that an accessory be essential for the vehicle’s overall effectiveness. Otherwise, many parts would fall outside the definition of accessories, which is not the legislature’s intent.

    Application to Car Seat Covers

    The Court found that Mehra Bros. manufactured car seat covers and upholstery specifically for sale as automobile parts. These items add comfort and elegance to vehicles and are sold in the automobile market as accessories. Therefore, they fall within the definition of accessories and are subject to the 13% sales tax under the relevant provisions of the Act.

    Implications for Businesses and Consumers

    • Businesses: Manufacturers and dealers of car seat covers and similar products must treat these items as accessories for tax purposes, applying the higher sales tax rate.
    • Consumers: The cost of car seat covers may be higher due to the increased tax rate, reflecting their status as taxable accessories.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies that car seat covers are indeed accessories under the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959. This decision sets a precedent for how similar products are taxed and provides clear guidance for both businesses and tax authorities.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Kolkata- Imported medical equiment were accessories, not parts

    Source: Supreme 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

  • CESTAT Chennai on Inclusion of Royalty Payments in Customs Valuation of Imported Raw Materials

    CESTAT Chennai on Inclusion of Royalty Payments in Customs Valuation of Imported Raw Materials

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 09.07.2026

    CESTAT Chennai on Inclusion of Royalty Payments in Customs Valuation of Imported Raw Materials

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

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. concerning the inclusion of royalty payments in the valuation of imported raw materials for customs duty purposes. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications of the tribunal’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd., based in Tamil Nadu, has been importing raw materials such as textured yarn, technical yarn, and semi-finished clutch facings from its related foreign suppliers, primarily M/s. Valeo Materriaux De Friction, France, since its inception.

    The relationship between the Indian company and its foreign suppliers was scrutinized by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) of Chennai Customs as early as 2000.

    The SVB confirmed that the companies were related under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988, but accepted the declared invoice value as the transaction value. Importantly, it was held that royalty payments made to the foreign supplier were not to be added to the transaction value of the imported goods.

    This position was periodically reviewed and upheld in subsequent orders in 2004, 2007, and 2010.

    The Dispute: Inclusion of Royalty in Customs Valuation

    In 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs revisited the issue, arguing that the royalty should have been calculated on the net sales value without excluding the value of imported raw materials. This led to a demand for differential customs duty for the period 2001 to 2013, along with interest, on the grounds that the royalty amount should be included in the transaction value of imports.

    Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. challenged this demand, leading to a series of appeals. The core legal question was whether the royalty payments made by the appellant to its foreign associate should be added to the value of imported raw materials for the purpose of calculating customs duty.

    Key Legal Findings

    The CESTAT Chennai, after reviewing the facts and the relevant agreements, made several important observations:

    1. Nature of Royalty Payments
      • The tribunal found that the royalty payments were not directly related to the import of raw materials. The agreement did not make royalty a condition for the sale or import of raw materials.
      • The royalty was linked to the sale of finished goods, not to the import of components or raw materials.
    2. Customs Valuation Rules
      • Under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, royalties and license fees are to be added to the transaction value only if they are a condition of sale for the imported goods.
      • The tribunal found no evidence that royalty payments were a pre-condition for the import of raw materials.
    3. Extended Period and Suppression of Facts
      • The tribunal noted that the department was aware of the royalty arrangement for years and had accepted the company’s declared values in multiple orders.
      • There was no suppression of facts by the appellant, and the department could not invoke the extended period for demanding duty retrospectively.
    4. Final Decision
      • The tribunal set aside the demand for differential customs duty, holding that the inclusion of royalty payments in the transaction value of imported raw materials was not justified.
      • The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential benefits to the appellant.

    Implications of the Ruling

    This decision clarifies the treatment of royalty payments in customs valuation, especially in cases involving related parties. Key takeaways include:

    • Royalty payments must be directly linked to the import of goods to be included in the customs value.
    • The existence of a relationship between importer and supplier does not automatically justify the addition of royalty to the transaction value.
    • Departments must act within reasonable timeframes and cannot invoke extended periods without clear evidence of suppression or misrepresentation.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Chennai’s ruling in favor of Valeo Friction Materials India Ltd. sets an important precedent for importers dealing with related-party transactions and royalty payments. It reinforces the principle that only royalties directly related to the import of goods and made as a condition of sale can be added to the customs value, providing much-needed clarity and certainty for businesses engaged in international trade.

    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

  • CESTAT Chennai Remands Urban Essentials Sanitary Imports: BIS Certification, MSME Exemptions, and Procedural Fairness in Customs Adjudication

    CESTAT Chennai Remands Urban Essentials Sanitary Imports: BIS Certification, MSME Exemptions, and Procedural Fairness in Customs Adjudication

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.07.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Remands Urban Essentials Sanitary Imports: BIS Certification, MSME Exemptions, and Procedural Fairness in Customs Adjudication

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

    The recent order by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has brought to light critical issues surrounding the import of sanitary products into India. The case of M/s. Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd. versus the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) centers on the application of Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) requirements, the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order (QCO), and the rights of Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) in the import process.

    Background: The Import and Detention

    Urban Essentials India Pvt. Ltd., a registered MSME, imported large consignments of sanitary napkins and panty liners from China in early 2025. The goods, valued at over INR 21 million, were detained by customs authorities at Chennai port. The reason: the products did not bear the mandatory BIS Standard Mark, and the importer lacked a valid BIS licence, as required by the QCO, 2024 (amended in 2025).

    The Legal Framework

    • Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 2024 (QCO): Mandates that sanitary products must conform to Indian Standard IS 5405:2019/2025 and bear the BIS mark.
    • BIS Act, 2016: Section 17 prohibits the import, sale, or distribution of such goods without a valid BIS licence and Standard Mark.
    • QCO Implementation Timeline: Large and Medium Enterprises had to comply by 01.01.2025, while MSMEs were given until 01.04.2025.

    Customs Action and the Appeal

    The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods, imposed a fine for re-export, and levied penalties under the Customs Act. Urban Essentials appealed, arguing:

    • As an MSME, they were entitled to the extended compliance deadline (01.04.2025).
    • The QCO should not apply to their imports, as the goods were shipped before the MSME deadline.
    • The date of import should be determined by the Bill of Lading and Shipping Bill, both predating the compliance deadline.

    Key Issues Examined by the Tribunal

    1. Applicability of BIS Standards: Whether the imported goods must conform to IS 5405:2019/2025 and bear the BIS mark.
    2. MSME Deadline Extension: Whether the QCO’s relaxation for MSMEs applies to importers or only to domestic manufacturers.
    3. Prohibition and Confiscation: Whether goods imported without a BIS licence are β€˜prohibited’ and liable for confiscation.
    4. Procedural Fairness: Whether the Commissioner’s order was a “speaking order” that properly addressed all arguments and legal nuances.

    Tribunal’s Observations and Findings

    • The Tribunal found that the Commissioner’s order lacked detailed reasoning and failed to analyze the QCO guidance and MSME arguments.
    • The order did not clarify whether the MSME extension applied to importers, despite the appellant’s registration as a small enterprise.
    • Procedural irregularities were noted, including conflicting interim orders and writ petitions before the High Court.

    The Outcome: Remand for Fresh Adjudication

    The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner’s order and remanded the case for a fresh, detailed adjudication. The Commissioner was directed to:

    • Issue a new, reasoned order considering all arguments, especially regarding MSME status and the correct date of import.
    • Complete proceedings within 60 days, strictly adhering to principles of natural justice.

    Why This Case Matters

    This case highlights the complexities of regulatory compliance for importers, especially MSMEs, under evolving quality control regimes. It underscores the need for:

    • Clear, well-reasoned administrative orders.
    • Proper application of QCO and BIS requirements.
    • Careful consideration of MSME-related relaxations in import compliance.

    Conclusion

    The Urban Essentials case serves as a precedent for future disputes involving BIS certification and MSME rights in imports. It emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and detailed legal reasoning in customs adjudication, ensuring that both regulatory objectives and business realities are balanced.

    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

  • CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Smuggling Penalty

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Smuggling Penalty

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.07.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Sets Aside Gold Smuggling Penalty

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

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of M/s. Bapi Das, who appealed against a penalty imposed for alleged involvement in gold smuggling. This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, the legal arguments, and the Tribunal’s reasoning, highlighting the importance of corroborative evidence in customs adjudication.

    Background of the Case

    • Incident: On 13 January 2018, DRI officers arrested Kartik Sen with 40 pieces of gold. Sen claimed he was introduced to the smuggling operation by Sushil Bauli and acted under the instructions of Bapi Das.
    • Proceedings: The gold was confiscated, and penalties were imposed on several individuals, including Bapi Das. Only Bapi Das appealed the penalty of Rs. 30,00,000.

    Key Statements and Evidence

    1. Kartik Sen’s Statement: Alleged that Bapi Das orchestrated the smuggling, introducing him to suppliers and directing operations.
    2. Sushil Bauli’s Statement: Denied knowing Bapi Das or introducing Sen to him, contradicting Sen’s account.
    3. Bapi Das’s Statement: Initially confessed to involvement but later retracted the statement before a magistrate, claiming coercion.
    4. Other Alleged Associates: No statements were recorded from other named individuals (e.g., Bharat Biswas, Asit Roy, Shyam Sarkar), and no physical evidence linked Bapi Das to the smuggled gold.

    Legal Arguments by the Appellant

    • Reliance on Uncorroborated Statements: The appellant argued that the penalty was based solely on uncorroborated statements of co-accused, without independent evidence.
    • Retraction of Confession: The confession was retracted at the earliest opportunity, undermining its evidentiary value.
    • No Physical or Documentary Evidence: No gold, documents, or financial records were found linking Bapi Das to the smuggling.
    • Procedural Lapses: The authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedure for admitting statements as evidence under Section 108 of the Customs Act and Section 9D of the Central Excise Act.

    Judicial Precedents Cited

    The appellant relied on several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including:

    • Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail v. Special Director, Enforcement Directorate: Confessions of co-accused require corroboration.
    • Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat: Co-accused confessions are weak evidence.
    • G-Tech Industries v. Union of India: Statements must be admitted following strict procedures; otherwise, they lack evidentiary value.
    • Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai v. Ganpati Overseas: Retracted statements cannot be relied upon without corroborative evidence.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    • Contradictory Statements: The statements of Kartik Sen and Sushil Bauli did not corroborate each other.
    • Retraction Considered: The Tribunal noted the immediate retraction of Bapi Das’s confession, reducing its reliability.
    • Lack of Corroborative Evidence: No independent evidence (physical, documentary, or financial) supported the allegations against Bapi Das.
    • Procedural Non-Compliance: The authorities did not follow the mandatory procedure for admitting statements as evidence.

    Final Order and Implications

    • Penalty Set Aside: The Tribunal set aside the Rs. 30,00,000 penalty against Bapi Das, emphasizing that penalties cannot be imposed solely on uncorroborated statements of co-accused.
    • Legal Principle Affirmed: The judgment reinforces the need for independent corroboration and strict adherence to procedural safeguards in customs and excise cases.

    Conclusion

    The Bapi Das CESTAT Kolkata case underscores the judiciary’s insistence on fair procedure and reliable evidence in penal actions under customs law. It serves as a reminder that confessionsβ€”especially those retracted or made by co-accusedβ€”must be corroborated by independent evidence before forming the basis for penalties or convictions.

    Connected Matter

    High Court of Punjab & Haryana Sets Aside Excise Order for Non-Compliance with Section 9D

    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

  • CESTAT Allahabad Set Aside of Customs Duty Demands, Penalties, and Confiscations in Alleged Gold Jewellery Diversion and Duty Drawback Misuse

    CESTAT Allahabad Set Aside of Customs Duty Demands, Penalties, and Confiscations in Alleged Gold Jewellery Diversion and Duty Drawback Misuse

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2026

    CESTAT Allahabad Set Aside of Customs Duty Demands, Penalties, and Confiscations in Alleged Gold Jewellery Diversion and Duty Drawback Misuse

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

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Allahabad recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of appeals involving Shokeen Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Raj Jewellers, and several individuals. The case revolved around allegations of customs violations, gold jewellery diversion, and improper availing of duty drawback benefits. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the tribunal’s findings, and its broader implications for the gold export sector.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute originated from two show cause notices issued to the appellants, following intelligence received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) about alleged misuse of the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) scheme by M/s Raj Jewellers. The authorities claimed that gold jewellery, manufactured from duty-free imported bullion, was being diverted into the domestic market instead of being exported, as required under the SEZ scheme.

    Key Parties Involved

    1. M/s Shokeen Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. (New Delhi)
    2. M/s Raj Jewellers (Noida SEZ, Proprietor: Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma)
    3. Mr. Ajit Singh (Businessman, Delhi)
    4. Mr. Nishant Shokeen (Director, Shokeen Jewellers)

    Allegations by Customs Authorities

    • Diversion of Duty-Free Gold: Raj Jewellers was accused of diverting gold jewellery meant for export into the domestic market by exchanging bags at the airport after customs clearance.
    • Improper Duty Drawback Claims: Shokeen Jewellers allegedly exported the diverted jewellery and claimed inadmissible duty drawback using fake invoices.
    • Penalties and Confiscations: The authorities confiscated gold jewellery and bullion, demanded customs duty and interest, and imposed heavy penalties on the companies and individuals involved.

    Investigation and Proceedings

    • Airport Interception: DRI officers intercepted Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma at IGI Airport, recovering over 13 kg of gold jewellery.
    • Searches and Seizures: Searches at Raj Jewellers’ SEZ premises and Shokeen Jewellers’ office led to further seizures of gold bullion and jewellery.
    • Statements and Retractions: Statements were recorded from the accused, but both Mr. Ajit Singh and Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma later retracted their statements, alleging coercion.
    • Denial of Cross-Examination: The appellants repeatedly requested cross-examination of key witnesses and panch witnesses, but these requests were denied without reasoned orders.

    Appellants’ Defense

    • Procedural Irregularities: The appellants argued that the panchnama (seizure record) was unreliable, as panch witnesses were not present during the actual interception.
    • Improbability of Alleged Modus Operandi: They highlighted that airport security protocols make it impossible for domestic and international passengers to exchange bags post-security.
    • Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The case was built solely on uncorroborated statements, with no financial or documentary evidence of diversion or hawala payments.
    • Genuine Export Transactions: Documentary evidence from foreign buyers confirmed receipt of jewellery, and all banking and VAT records supported the legitimacy of transactions.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    The CESTAT bench, after reviewing the evidence and submissions, found several critical flaws in the customs authorities’ case:

    1. Unreliable Statements: Key statements were retracted and not corroborated by independent evidence.
    2. Defective Panchnama: The seizure record was not substantiated by witness examination.
    3. Denial of Natural Justice: The appellants were denied cross-examination and a fair hearing, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
    4. Lack of Substantiation: No credible evidence supported the allegations of gold diversion or improper duty drawback claims.
    5. Compliance by Appellants: The appellants had fulfilled export obligations, received remittances, and maintained proper records.

    Final Order and Consequences

    The tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed all four appeals, and directed the return of confiscated gold and jewellery to the appellants. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness, the need for corroborative evidence in customs cases, and the rights of appellants to cross-examination and a reasoned hearing.

    Implications for the Gold Export Sector

    • Due Process: The ruling reinforces the necessity for authorities to follow due process and provide fair opportunities for defense.
    • Documentation and Compliance: Exporters must maintain robust documentation and ensure compliance with all regulatory requirements.
    • Checks on Arbitrary Action: The judgment acts as a check on arbitrary or unsubstantiated actions by enforcement agencies.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Allahabad’s decision in the Shokeen Jewellers case is a landmark in upholding the principles of natural justice and evidentiary standards in customs proceedings. It serves as a reminder to both authorities and businesses of the critical balance between enforcement and fairness in India’s export-import regime.

    Source: CESTAT Allahabad

    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

  • CESTAT Chandigarh on Alleged Cigarette Smuggling and Customs Penalties

    CESTAT Chandigarh on Alleged Cigarette Smuggling and Customs Penalties

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2026

    CESTAT Chandigarh on Alleged Cigarette Smuggling and Customs Penalties

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

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh recently delivered a significant judgment in the case involving the alleged smuggling of prohibited cigarettes and the role of Shri Sanjay Choudhary. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the final decision, offering insights into the complexities of customs law enforcement in India.

    Background of the Case

    • Incident: On 19 May 2021, customs officials at Ludhiana discovered a large quantity of undeclared, prohibited cigarettes concealed behind bags of dry dates in a consignment imported by M/s Shreyans Appearls & Leatherites.
    • Seizure Details:
      • 120 cartons of ESSE brand (1,200,000 sticks)
      • 20 cartons of Benson & Hedges (200,000 sticks)
      • 110 cartons of Gudang Garam (1,584,000 sticks)
    • Legal Context: Import of cigarettes is strictly regulated under the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act (COTPA, 2003) and related rules. The seized cigarettes lacked statutory warnings and were not declared in import documents, making them liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962.

    Allegations Against Sanjay Choudhary

    The customs department alleged that Shri Sanjay Choudhary:

    1. Assisted in procuring prohibited cigarettes.
    2. Helped the main accused, Sh. Chander Shekhar, abscond by providing cash and promising to settle the case.
    3. Was evasive during investigations and attempted to clear the consignment at the port.
    4. Was linked to the booking of containers through his employee and had overlapping travel dates with Chander Shekhar in Dubai.
    5. Tried to obstruct investigations by filing writ petitions.

    Based on these allegations, a penalty of Rs. 55,00,000 was imposed on Choudhary under Sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act.

    Defense and Legal Arguments

    Choudhary’s defense, as presented by his counsel, focused on the following points:

    • The entire case against him was based solely on the statement of Chander Shekhar, which was not corroborated by any documentary or independent evidence.
    • No financial transactions or partnership links between Choudhary and Chander Shekhar were established.
    • The customs broker and other key witnesses did not implicate Choudhary in their statements.
    • There was no evidence that Choudhary had any role in the import, clearance, or documentation of the prohibited goods.
    • The penalties under Sections 112 and 114AA were not sustainable as Choudhary neither imported nor dealt with the goods, nor made any false declarations.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    The CESTAT bench, after reviewing all evidence and arguments, made the following key observations:

    1. Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The only evidence against Choudhary was the statement of Chander Shekhar, which was not supported by any other witness or document.
    2. No Direct Involvement: There was no proof that Choudhary was involved in the import, clearance, or handling of the smuggled cigarettes.
    3. No Basis for Penalty: The requirements for imposing penalties under Sections 112(a)(i) and 114AA were not met, as Choudhary had not made any false declarations or directly dealt with the goods.
    4. Commissioner (Appeals) Decision Upheld: The tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who had dropped the penalties against Choudhary.

    Final Order

    The CESTAT dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the order that exonerated Sanjay Choudhary from all penalties related to the alleged smuggling case. The cross-objection application was also disposed of accordingly.

    Key Takeaways

    • Importance of Corroborative Evidence: Mere statements without supporting evidence are insufficient for imposing penalties in customs cases.
    • Due Process: The case highlights the necessity for thorough investigation and adherence to legal standards before penalizing individuals.
    • Legal Precedent: This ruling reinforces the principle that penalties under customs law require clear, direct involvement and cannot be based solely on uncorroborated allegations.

    This case serves as a crucial reference for importers, legal practitioners, and enforcement agencies dealing with customs law and the import of regulated goods in India.

    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

  • Karnataka HC Quashes Customs Seizure: Ruled on Classification and Release of Imported Roasted Areca Nuts

    Karnataka HC Quashes Customs Seizure: Ruled on Classification and Release of Imported Roasted Areca Nuts

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2026

    Karnataka HC Quashes Customs Seizure: Ruled on Classification and Release of Imported Roasted Areca Nuts

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

    The Karnataka High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in a series of writ petitions filed by M/s Vaibhav International, a Bengaluru-based importer, against the Customs Department’s seizure and detention of imported roasted areca nuts. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the case, the legal issues involved, the court’s analysis, and the implications for importers and customs authorities.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Vaibhav International imported 28 metric tons of roasted areca nuts from Indonesia in August 2024. The goods were declared under Bill of Entry No. 5470956 dated 06.09.2024, classified under tariff entry 20081920, and valued at Rs. 35,65,800. Upon arrival, the Customs Department sent samples for testing to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL), New Delhi, which confirmed the goods as roasted areca nuts. However, a subsequent test by ICAR-CPCRI, Kerala, was inconclusive about the roasting process, leading customs authorities to treat the goods as raw areca nuts and seize the consignment on 06.12.2024 for alleged violation of the Foreign Trade Policy.

    Legal Proceedings and Reliefs Sought

    Vaibhav International filed multiple writ petitions seeking:

    1. Quashing the seizure and detention of goods.
    2. Release of the imported cargo in accordance with interim court orders.
    3. Setting aside the show cause notice and related communications from customs authorities.
    4. Issuance of waiver certificates for demurrage, detention, and ground rent charges.

    Key Legal Issues Examined

    The High Court considered four main points:

    1. Legality of the provisional assessment under the Customs Act.
    2. Correct tariff classification of the imported goods.
    3. Lawfulness of the valuation adopted by customs authorities.
    4. Validity of the show cause notice and confiscation proceedings.

    1. Provisional Assessment Procedures

    The court found that the Customs Department failed to follow the prescribed procedures under Sections 17 and 18 of the Customs Act. The bills of entry were initially marked as final and only later changed to provisional without proper justification or adherence to timelines. The department also did not finalize the provisional assessment within the required period after receiving test reports, violating the Customs (Finalisation of Provisional Assessment) Regulations, 2018.

    2. Tariff Classification Dispute

    The core dispute was whether roasted areca nuts should be classified under Chapter 8 (as raw/dried nuts) or Chapter 20 (as roasted nuts) of the Customs Tariff. The court relied on:

    • Multiple CRCL reports confirming the goods as roasted areca nuts.
    • Judicial precedents from the Madras and Allahabad High Courts, which held that roasted areca nuts are specifically classifiable under Chapter 20 (CTH 20081920), not under the general entry for raw/dried nuts in Chapter 8.
    • Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) explanatory notes, which treat roasting as a distinct process from drying.

    The court concluded that the Customs Department’s attempt to classify the goods under Chapter 8 was contrary to law and facts.

    3. Valuation of Imported Goods

    The court held that the relevant date for determining the rate and valuation is the date of presentation of the bill of entry (06.09.2024), as per Section 15 of the Customs Act. Subsequent DGFT notifications imposing restrictions or changing classification could not be applied retrospectively. The declared transaction value was accepted since there was no evidence or procedure followed to dispute it under Section 14 and Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation Rules.

    4. Show Cause Notice and Confiscation

    The show cause notice and confiscation proceedings were found to be premature and illegal, as they were initiated before finalizing the provisional assessment. The court cited Supreme Court judgments clarifying that such proceedings can only commence after assessment is finalized.

    Court’s Final Orders

    The High Court allowed all three writ petitions and ordered:

    1. Quashing of the seizure memorandum, impugned communications, and show cause notice.
    2. Immediate release of the imported goods to the petitioner, adopting the classification and valuation as declared by the importer.
    3. Issuance of waiver certificates for demurrage, detention, and ground rent charges.
    4. Direction to customs authorities to comply within seven days of receiving the court order.

    Implications and Takeaways

    • For Importers: The judgment reinforces the importance of proper classification and the right to rely on accredited laboratory reports. It also highlights the need for customs authorities to strictly follow statutory procedures and timelines.
    • For Customs Authorities: The ruling serves as a reminder that arbitrary or retrospective application of policy changes, and deviation from prescribed assessment procedures, will not withstand judicial scrutiny.
    • For Trade Policy: The case underscores the significance of clarity and consistency in tariff classification and the limited retrospective effect of policy notifications.

    Conclusion

    This Karnataka High Court decision sets a strong precedent for the protection of importers’ rights and the necessity for customs authorities to adhere to due process. It clarifies the classification of roasted areca nuts and provides guidance on the interplay between customs law, trade policy, and administrative procedures.

    Connected Matter

    Karnataka High Court Quashes Customs Seizure

    Source: Karnataka 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