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: #Exemption

  • Supreme Court Upholds Right of Charitable Hospitals to Claim Most Beneficial Customs Duty Exemption

    Supreme Court Upholds Right of Charitable Hospitals to Claim Most Beneficial Customs Duty Exemption

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

    Date: 13.06.2026

    Supreme Court Upholds Right of Charitable Hospitals to Claim Most Beneficial Customs Duty Exemption

    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 of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Share Medical Care vs. Union of India & Others (Appeal (civil) 919 of 2007), addressing the eligibility of charitable hospitals to claim customs duty exemptions on imported medical equipment under different categories of a government notification. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications of the Court’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    Share Medical Care is a charitable society established by Non-Resident Indian (NRI) scientists and doctors in the United States, aiming to bring advanced medical technology to India. The society operates a non-profit hospital in Ghanapur, near Hyderabad, specializing in heart and related ailments.

    In 1992-93, Share Medical Care imported medical equipment for its hospital, seeking exemption from customs duty under Notification No. 64/88-Cus dated March 1, 1988. This notification provided exemptions for hospital equipment imported by specified categories of hospitals, subject to certification by the Directorate General of Health Services (DGHS). The notification classified hospitals into four categories, each with different conditions for exemption.

    The Dispute

    Initially, Share Medical Care applied for and received exemption under Category 2 of the notification. Later, the society sought to claim exemption under Category 3, arguing that it was entitled to greater benefits due to its rural location and charitable status. However, the DGHS rejected this application, stating that since the society had already applied under Category 2, it could not subsequently seek exemption under Category 3. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld this decision, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

    Legal Issues Considered

    The central legal question was whether an applicant who initially claimed exemption under one category of a notification could later seek exemption under another category, especially if the latter provided greater benefits.

    Key Arguments

    • Appellant (Share Medical Care):
      1. Authorities are duty-bound to consider an applicant’s eligibility for any category of exemption, even if a different category was initially claimed.
      2. There is no legal bar or estoppel preventing a shift to a more beneficial category if the applicant meets the conditions.
    • Respondents (Union of India & DGHS):
      1. The appellant voluntarily applied under Category 2 and could not change to Category 3 as an afterthought.
      2. The exemption under Category 2 was withdrawn due to non-fulfillment of free treatment obligations, and the subsequent claim under Category 3 was not tenable.

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling

    The Supreme Court held that:

    1. No Bar on Claiming More Beneficial Exemption:
      • The Court cited previous judgments (e.g., Indian Petro Chemicals, H.C.L. Limited, Unichem Laboratories) establishing that if multiple exemption notifications or categories apply, the assessee is entitled to claim the most beneficial one.
      • There is no estoppel or prohibition against seeking a more advantageous exemption at a later stage, provided the conditions are met.
    2. Duty of Authorities:
      • Authorities must act fairly and reasonably, granting all benefits available under the law rather than seeking to maximize revenue at the expense of eligible applicants.
    3. Error in Rejection:
      • The DGHS’s refusal to consider the application under Category 3 solely because the initial application was under Category 2 was found to be legally unsustainable.
      • The High Court’s affirmation of this approach was also set aside.
    4. Obligations Must Be Met:
      • The Court clarified that if an applicant fails to meet the conditions of a particular category, exemption can be denied for that category. However, if eligible under another category, the benefit cannot be withheld.

    Outcome

    The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the authorities to reconsider Share Medical Care’s application for exemption under Category 3 on its merits, without being influenced by the earlier application under Category 2. The Court also awarded costs to the appellant.

    Implications of the Judgment

    • Precedent for Charitable Institutions: Charitable hospitals and similar institutions can seek the most beneficial exemption available, even if they initially applied under a different category.
    • Administrative Fairness: Government authorities must evaluate applications based on eligibility and not procedural technicalities.
    • Encouragement for Healthcare Sector: The judgment supports the growth of charitable healthcare by ensuring access to exemptions that facilitate the import of advanced medical equipment.

    Conclusion

    This Supreme Court decision reinforces the principle that eligible institutions should not be denied statutory benefits due to procedural choices, provided they meet the substantive conditions. It is a landmark ruling for charitable organizations seeking to maximize their impact through lawful exemptions and benefits.

    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 Bangalore Upholds JSW Steel’s Exemption Claim: Importance of Proper Sampling Procedures in Customs Coal Imports

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds JSW Steel’s Exemption Claim: Importance of Proper Sampling Procedures in Customs Coal Imports

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

    Date: 12.06.2026

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds JSW Steel’s Exemption Claim: Importance of Proper Sampling Procedures in Customs Coal Imports

    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) Bangalore recently delivered a significant order in the case of JSW Steel Ltd. concerning the classification, sampling, and exemption benefits for imported coal. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the implications for importers and customs authorities.

    Background of the Case

    JSW Steel Ltd. imported coal and classified it under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 2701 1910, claiming exemption benefits under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS and Notification No. 20/2006-CUS. The customs authorities denied these benefits, confirming a duty demand of Rs. 6,24,76,922. JSW Steel appealed, and the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in their favor, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. CC (Preventive), Jamnagar. The Revenue then appealed this decision to the CESTAT.

    Core Legal Issues

    1. Sampling Procedure Dispute

    • Customs Argument: The Revenue argued that the coal samples were drawn in the presence of JSW Steel’s Custom House Agent and that the sampling procedure had not been objected to until after the test report was received. They also noted that the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR), a government institute, conducted the testing, and that the exemption notifications did not specify a particular testing procedure.
    • JSW Steel’s Argument: JSW Steel contended that the sampling was not conducted as per IS Standard 436, which is critical for accurate technical assessment. They also highlighted that their request for retesting was ignored and that the test results from the load port and CIMFR did not match.

    2. Legal Precedent: Tata Chemicals Ltd.

    The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tata Chemicals Ltd., which established that if no specific testing method is prescribed, the Indian Standard (IS 436) must be followed. The Supreme Court held that samples not drawn according to IS 436 are invalid for legal and technical assessment.

    Tribunal’s Findings

    1. Sampling Must Follow IS 436:
      • The Tribunal confirmed that IS 436 is the applicable standard for sampling coal imports when no other method is specified.
      • Samples not drawn as per IS 436 cannot be relied upon for customs assessment or denial of exemption benefits.
    2. No Estoppel Against Law:
      • The Tribunal rejected the argument that JSW Steel’s acceptance of previous sampling methods or the presence of their agent could validate an improper procedure. Legal requirements must be strictly followed, and there can be no estoppel against the law.
    3. Retesting Requests Are Justified:
      • The Tribunal found that JSW Steel’s request for retesting was reasonable, especially since the test report was communicated after eight months and there was a discrepancy between the load port and CIMFR results.
    4. Revenue’s Appeal Dismissed:
      • The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’s order, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and confirming JSW Steel’s entitlement to the exemption benefits.

    Implications for Importers and Customs Authorities

    • Strict Adherence to Sampling Standards: Importers and customs officials must ensure that sampling procedures strictly follow IS 436 or any other prescribed standard to avoid disputes and ensure fair assessment.
    • Importance of Timely Communication: Delays in communicating test results can undermine the credibility of the assessment and justify requests for retesting.
    • Legal Precedents Matter: The Tata Chemicals Ltd. decision remains a cornerstone for similar disputes, reinforcing the need for procedural compliance.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Bangalore’s order in favor of JSW Steel Ltd. underscores the importance of following prescribed sampling procedures and respecting legal precedents in customs assessments. This case serves as a reminder that procedural lapses can invalidate technical findings and that both importers and authorities must prioritize compliance to ensure fair outcomes.

    Source: CESTAT Bangalore

    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 Mumbai Overturns Duty Demand in SAD Exemption Dispute

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Duty Demand in SAD Exemption Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 14.03.2026

    CESTAT Mumbai Overturns Duty Demand in SAD Exemption Dispute

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

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

    Background of the Case ​

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

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

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

    Arguments Presented

    Appellants’ Arguments ​

    1. Eligibility for SAD Exemption: The appellants argued that the issue of eligibility for SAD exemption on clearance from FTWZ to DTA had already been conclusively settled in favor of appellants in multiple decisions by the Tribunal. ​ They contended that stock transfers from FTWZ to DTA cannot be equated with exemptions from sales tax/VAT. ​
    2. Disclosure of Facts: The appellants maintained that they had made complete disclosures to the Department and followed all prescribed procedures. ​ They argued that there was no suppression of facts or malafide intent. ​
    3. Industry-Wide Issue: The appellants highlighted that the issue was subject to varying interpretations by different government wings, and they had acted in good faith based on assurances from the Development Commissioner of SEZ/FTWZ and the FTWZ unit. ​
    4. Time-Barred Demand: The appellants contended that the demand for the disputed period (April 2012 to March 2013) was barred by the limitation period, as the SCN was issued beyond the normal period of one year. ​

    Revenue’s Arguments ​

    1. Clarification from Ministry of Finance: The Revenue argued that Customs Circular No. ​ 44/2013 dated December 30, 2013, clarified that SAD exemption was not available for goods cleared from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA on a stock transfer basis for self-consumption. ​
    2. Misleading Undertaking: The Revenue alleged that the appellants had provided misleading undertakings and suppressed facts to avail the SAD exemption. ​

    CESTAT’s Observations and Ruling ​

    After hearing both sides and reviewing the case records, the Tribunal made the following observations:

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

    Final Order

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

    Key Takeaways

    1. SAD Exemption: The judgment reinforces the principle that SAD exemption under Notification No. ​ 45/2005-Customs is applicable to goods cleared from SEZ/FTWZ to DTA, even on a stock transfer basis, provided the goods are not exempt from sales tax/VAT. ​
    2. Importance of Disclosure: The Tribunal highlighted the significance of full disclosure and compliance with prescribed procedures to avoid allegations of suppression or malafide intent. ​
    3. Limitation Period: The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the limitation period for issuing SCNs, and that extended periods cannot be invoked without evidence of suppression or misstatement. ​
    4. Judicial Precedents: The judgment demonstrates the importance of consistency in judicial decisions, with the Tribunal relying on previous rulings to arrive at its conclusion. ​

    This decision is a significant win for India Steel Works Limited and sets a precedent for similar cases involving SAD exemption claims under Notification No. ​ 45/2005-Customs. It also serves as a reminder to both taxpayers and authorities about the importance of adhering to legal provisions and established judicial principles.

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CAAR Mumbai Rules Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900 eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    CAAR Mumbai Rules Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900 eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    Aadrikaa Law Offices (ALO)- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Dated: 30.01.2026

    CAAR Mumbai Rules “Carbon Pultruded Plates under HSN 68151900” eligible for Concessional Duty as WOEG Blade Parts

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha- BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    Summary of the Case

    Applicant: Suzlon Energy Limited ​

    Subject Goods: Carbon Pultruded Plates ​

    Issue: Determination of the applicable Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate for the import of Carbon Pultruded Plates under Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs (as amended by Notification No. ​ 05/2025-Customs). ​

    Suzlon Energy Limited sought an advance ruling on whether Carbon Pultruded Plates, used as spar caps in rotor blades of Wind Operated Electricity Generators (WOEG), qualify for concessional BCD under Sr. No. 405(4) or Sr. No. ​ 405(5) of the exemption notification. ​

    The applicant argued that the plates, made from carbon fibers, are integral to the manufacturing of rotor blades and should qualify for concessional BCD either as “raw materials” under Sr. No. ​ 405(5) or as “parts” under Sr. No. 405(4). ​

    The Customs Authority for Advance Rulings (CAAR) examined the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 68151900 and the scope of the exemption notification. ​

    Legal and Statutory Provisions Referred to ​

    1. Customs Act, 1962 ​
      • Section 28H(1): Application for advance ruling.
      • Section 28-I(2): Matters related to classification of goods and applicability of exemption notifications. ​
    2. Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ​
      • Chapter Heading 68151900: Classification of Carbon Pultruded Plates as “Other articles of carbon fibers.” ​
    3. Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs (as amended by Notification No. ​ 05/2025-Customs) ​
      • Sr. No. ​ 405(5): Concessional BCD for “Balsa Wood, Carbon Fibre for the wind operated electricity generator blades.” ​
      • Sr. No. ​ 405(4): Concessional BCD for “Parts for the manufacture or the maintenance of blades for rotor of wind operated electricity generators.” ​

    Case Citations Referred to

    1. Collector of Central Excise v. Mahendra Engineering Works [1993 (67) ELT 134 (Tribunal)] ​
      • Established the principle that “a part of a part is a part of the whole,” meaning sub-components of a machine are categorized as components of the machine. ​
    2. Collector of Central Excise v. MP Oil Ltd [1990 (46) ELT 68 (Tribunal)] ​
      • Reaffirmed the principle that sub-components are integral parts of the whole machine. ​
    3. CCE v. Insulation Electrical [2008 (224) ELT 512 (SC)] ​
      • Defined “parts” as essential components of the whole without which the whole cannot function. ​
    4. Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. CCE [1989 (43) ELT 178 (SC)] ​
      • Distinguished machine-specific components as “parts” rather than generic raw materials. ​

    Order Passed by the Advance Ruling Authority ​

    1. Classification: Carbon Pultruded Plates are classified under CTH 68151900 as “Other articles of carbon fibers” with a standard BCD rate of 10%. ​
    2. Eligibility under Sr. No. ​ 405(5): The plates are not eligible for concessional BCD under Sr. No. ​ 405(5) as this entry covers only raw carbon fibers or balsa wood, not articles of carbon fibers. ​
    3. Eligibility under Sr. No. ​ 405(4): The plates qualify as “parts for the manufacture or maintenance of blades for rotor of wind operated electricity generators” and are eligible for concessional BCD at 5%. ​

    Final Ruling: Carbon Pultruded Plates are eligible for concessional BCD under Sr. No. 405(4) of Notification No. ​ 50/2017-Customs (as amended). ​

    1. Statutory Framework Governing Classification in India

    The primary legal framework for the classification of goods is derived from the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI).

    • Classification is the process of identifying the correct tariff heading or sub-heading for goods, which determines duty liability and eligibility for exemptions.
    • The GRI provides that classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant Section or Chapter Notes.

    Key Indian Statutes Applicable:

    1. Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – Provides tariff structure and GRI.
    2. Customs Act, 1962 – Governs levy, valuation, and import compliance once classification is determined.
    3. GST framework (where relevant) – Uses HSN for tax rate determination.

    India follows the internationally harmonized system designed by the World Customs Organization, used by over 200 countries for uniform classification.

    2. Binding Legal Principles for Classification

    (A) Primacy of Headings and Notes

    The Supreme Court-recognized rule is that classification must be based on:

    • Terms of the heading
    • Relevant Section Notes
    • Chapter Notes

    These notes are binding and can override headings when necessary.

    (B) Sequential Application of GRI

    • Titles of sections or chapters are only for reference.
    • Legal determination flows from headings and notes first.

    (C) Essential Character Rule

    Incomplete or unassembled goods are classified as finished goods if they possess the β€œessential character.”

    (D) Competing Headings β†’ Rule 3

    Where goods are prima facie classifiable under multiple headings, GRI Rule 3 determines the correct classification.

    (E) β€œMost Akin” Test

    The Supreme Court has clarified that classification should identify the category most akin to the imported goods, not merely rely on probability.

    3. Judicial Recognition of the Framework

    In Collector of Central Excise v. Wood Craft Products Ltd., 1995 (77) ELT 23 (SC), the Court emphasized that tariff interpretation rules govern classification and that Section/Chapter Notes carry statutory force.

    Further, the Supreme Court reiterated that classification is crucial because it determines the legal and financial treatment of goods, including duty implications.

    4. Special Context: HSN 68151900

    Tariff Description:

    • HSN 6815 covers β€œarticles of stone or other mineral substances (including carbon fibres)… not elsewhere specified.”
    • Sub-heading 68151900 specifically refers to other non-electrical articles of graphite or carbon.

    Interpretative Impact:


    Because Heading 6815 is a residuary-style entry (β€œnot elsewhere specified or included”), courts and authorities typically apply the following logic:

    1. Examine whether the product fits a more specific heading first (GRI Rule 1 & 3).
    2. If not, classification may fall under the residual category.
    3. Apply the most akin test where technical similarity is disputed.

    5. Applied Legal Test for Goods under 68151900

    When deciding whether goods belong under 68151900, authorities generally evaluate:

    • Material composition (graphite/carbon vs. other minerals)
    • Functional use (non-electrical vs. electrical components)
    • Manufacturing characteristics
    • Trade understanding / commercial identity

    Only after excluding competing headings should the residuary entry be invoked β€” a well-settled interpretative approach under tariff law.

    6. Consolidated Legal Position

    The governing doctrine may be summarized as follows:

    Classification under Indian customs law is determined primarily by the statutory language of headings read with Section and Chapter Notes, applied through the General Rules for Interpretation; where ambiguity persists, courts adopt the essential character and β€œmost akin” tests before resorting to residuary entries such as HSN 68151900.

    Source: CAAR Ruling, Mumbai Bench

    Disclaimer

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

    Handy Download CAAR Order Below:

    CAAR-SuzlonDownload

  • CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.09.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Confirms Classification and Exemption Eligibility for Float Glass Imports from ASEAN​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    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 & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, has ruled in favor of M/s. Float Glass Centre, a regular importer of Clear Float Glass (CFG), in a case concerning the classification of imported goods and the denial of exemption benefits under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011. ​ This decision, pronounced on September 2, 2025, sets a significant precedent for importers navigating complex classification disputes and exemption claims.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. Float Glass Centre, based in Chennai, imports Clear Float Glass with an absorbent layer, which they classify under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7005 1090. ​ This classification entitles them to a β€˜NIL’ rate of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Sl. ​ No. 934 of Notification No. ​ 46/2011-Cus, provided the goods are imported from ASEAN countries. ​ However, the Assessing Officer denied this classification, citing discrepancies in the Country-of-Origin certificate, which mentioned a different CTH (7005 2990). ​ Consequently, the appellant filed bills of entry under protest and challenged the denial of exemption benefits before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), who rejected their claims. This led to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

    Source: CESTAT Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.05.2025

    CESTAT Kolkata Allows Exemption on Imported Crude Rice Bran Oil

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, set aside a massive β‚Ή70 crore customs duty demand raised against M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd. for importing crude rice bran oil. The tribunal held that the company was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (as amended), even though the acid content of the imported oil exceeded 20%.

    Background:

    M/s Kalyani Solvent Pvt. Ltd., a leading edible oil processor supplying to brands like Patanjali, had imported 104 consignments of crude rice bran oil between October 2010 and February 2012 under CTH 1515 9091, claiming duty exemption. Customs authorities later issued a Show Cause Notice in 2013 alleging the imports were ineligible for exemption due to high acid content, seeking recovery of β‚Ή70 crore.

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

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 24.04.2025

    CESTAT Chennai uphold exemption benefits and correct classification under CTH 8415 9000

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai Bench – Court No. III, has ruled in favor of M/s One Care Medical Centre, Coimbatore, quashing the reclassification of imported Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Air Conditioning Units and the denial of customs exemption benefit.

    Background:

    • The appellant imported various models of Toshiba indoor and outdoor air conditioning units from M/s Toshiba Carrier (Thailand) Co. Ltd. under Bills of Entry dated 07.11.2014.
    • They classified the goods under CTH 8415 9000 and claimed benefit under Customs Notification No. 46/2011 Sl. No. 1103(1).
    • The Revenue disagreed, asserting the goods were complete air conditioning units of more than 2-ton capacity, reclassifying them under CTH 8415 8110, attracting full duty.

    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 Chennai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Reader for Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com