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: #Imports

  • CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest to Berger Paints on Customs Refund

    CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest to Berger Paints on Customs Refund

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 23.07.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Orders 12% Interest to Berger Paints on Customs Refund

    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 order by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Kolkata, has set a significant precedent in customs refund jurisprudence. The case involved M/s. Berger Paints India Limited and the Department of Customs, focusing on the rate of interest applicable to refunds of amounts deposited during investigations.

    Background of the Case

    Berger Paints India Limited imported mixed xylene isomers between 2011 and 2014, classifying them under Customs Tariff Heading 2902.44.00. The goods were warehoused and later cleared for home consumption after duty payment. Subsequently, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation, contending that the goods should be classified under a different heading (2707), resulting in a duty difference of Rs. 7,44,493. Berger Paints deposited this amount ‘under protest’ in 2014.

    In 2017, the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and appropriated the deposit as duty. Berger Paints appealed to CESTAT, which ruled in their favor in January 2025, setting aside the demand. The Department’s appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in September 2025.

    The Refund Dispute

    Following the Supreme Court’s dismissal, Berger Paints sought a refund of the deposited amount, along with interest at 12% per annum. The authorities refunded the principal with 6% interest, prompting Berger Paints to appeal for the higher rate.

    Legal Arguments

    • Appellant’s Position: Berger Paints cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in ITC Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court’s rulings in Madura Coats Private Limited and Rajendra Kumar Jain, which directed payment of 12% interest on delayed refunds of investigation deposits.
    • Department’s Position: The Department argued that 6% interest was appropriate, referencing various High Court decisions and a 2014 government notification fixing the rate at 6% for certain refunds.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision

    The Tribunal examined the legal landscape and emphasized the binding nature of the jurisdictional High Court’s decisions. It noted:

    1. The Calcutta High Court, in Rajendra Kumar Jain (2024), held that in the absence of a statutory provision fixing the interest rate for investigation deposit refunds, 12% interest is payable.
    2. The 6% rate notification applies only from its date of effect and does not cover periods prior to its issuance.
    3. The Tribunal is bound to follow the jurisdictional High Court’s interpretation when there is a conflict among High Courts.

    Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the order granting only 6% interest and directed that Berger Paints be paid interest at 12% per annum on the refunded amount.

    Key Takeaways for Importers and Legal Practitioners

    1. Jurisdictional High Court Rulings Prevail: When conflicting High Court decisions exist, the Tribunal must follow the ruling of the High Court with jurisdiction over the case.
    2. Interest on Investigation Deposits: In the absence of a statutory provision, higher interest (12%) may be awarded on refunds of amounts deposited during investigations, as per prevailing High Court judgments.
    3. Notification Applicability: Government notifications fixing interest rates apply prospectively and do not affect periods before their issuance.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Kolkata’s order in favor of Berger Paints India Limited reinforces the importance of jurisdictional High Court decisions in customs matters and clarifies the applicable interest rate on refunds of investigation deposits. This ruling provides valuable guidance for importers and legal professionals dealing with similar disputes.

    Source: CESTAT Kolkata

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Supreme Court on Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty for Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Imports from Korea RP

    Supreme Court on Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty for Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Imports from Korea RP

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

    Date: 22.07.2026

    Supreme Court on Extension of Anti-Dumping Duty for Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber Imports from Korea RP

    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 landmark judgment addressing the legality of extending anti-dumping duties on imports of Acrylonitrile Butadiene Rubber (NBR) from Korea RP. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal framework, the issues considered, and the implications of the Court’s decision.

    Background: Anti-Dumping Duty on NBR Imports

    1. Initial Imposition: In 1997, following concerns from the domestic industry, India imposed anti-dumping duties on NBR imports from Korea RP and Germany to counteract unfair pricing that harmed local manufacturers.
    2. Sunset Reviews: Anti-dumping duties are typically valid for five years. Before expiry, the government can initiate a ‘sunset review’ to determine if the duty should continue. Reviews were conducted in 2002 and 2007, each time extending the duty for another five years.
    3. Third Sunset Review: As the 2009 notification was set to expire on January 1, 2014, a third sunset review was initiated on December 31, 2013. However, the public notification was only made available on January 6, 2014, after the original duty had lapsed.
    4. Extension Notification: On January 23, 2014, the government issued a notification extending the anti-dumping duty by one year, pending the outcome of the review.

    Legal Framework

    • Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Governs the imposition, review, and extension of anti-dumping duties.
      • Duties are valid for up to five years unless revoked earlier.
      • The government may extend the duty for another five years after a review.
      • If a review is initiated before expiry but not concluded, the duty may continue for up to one additional year pending the review outcome.

    Key Legal Questions Considered

    1. Relevant Date for Initiation of Sunset Review: Is the date of the government’s decision (December 31, 2013) or the date of public notification (January 6, 2014) the relevant date for determining if the review was timely?
    2. Validity of Extension Notification: Can the government validly extend the anti-dumping duty after the original notification has expired?

    Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Date of Initiation of Sunset Review

    • The Court held that the relevant date is when the government decides to initiate the review, not when the notification is made public. There is no statutory requirement for public notice or gazette publication before the expiry of the original duty for the review to be valid.
    • The decision to initiate the review on December 31, 2013, was therefore timely, even though the public became aware later.

    2. Validity of Extension After Expiry

    • The Court found that the power to extend the anti-dumping duty for up to one year pending review is an enabling provision, not an automatic one.
    • A valid notification must be issued before the expiry of the original duty. Once the original notification lapses, the government cannot extend it retroactively.
    • The January 23, 2014 notification, issued after the original duty expired, was held to be without legal authority and thus invalid.

    Implications of the Judgment

    • Strict Adherence to Timelines: The government must issue extension notifications before the expiry of the original anti-dumping duty period. Delays or retroactive extensions are not permitted.
    • Clarity for Stakeholders: Importers, exporters, and domestic industries now have clear guidance on the procedural requirements for anti-dumping duty reviews and extensions.
    • Legal Certainty: The judgment reinforces the principle that duties and taxes must be imposed strictly in accordance with the law and proper notifications.

    Conclusion

    The Supreme Court’s decision in the Kumho Petrochemicals case clarifies the legal process for extending anti-dumping duties in India. It underscores the importance of timely government action and adherence to statutory procedures, ensuring fairness and predictability in trade remedy measures.

    Connected Matter

    Madras HC Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on Huawei: Expiry of ADD Notifications for SEZ Units

    Source: Supreme Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties for Alleged Illegal Import of Chinese Fire Crackers

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties for Alleged Illegal Import of Chinese Fire Crackers

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

    Date: 21.07.2026

    CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Penalties for Alleged Illegal Import of Chinese Fire Crackers

    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 significant legal development unfolded at the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chandigarh, where M/s Amit Kumar Bansal, proprietor of M/s AR Trading Co., successfully appealed against heavy penalties imposed for the alleged illegal import of Chinese fire crackers. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal’s final decision.

    Background of the Case

    On September 9, 2015, officers from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ludhiana, conducted a search at the business premises of M/s Amit Kumar Bansal. During the search, a stock of fire crackers and various imported goods such as toy guns, PVC film, mosquito killer packets, and kite balloons were found. The DRI alleged that the fire crackers were of Chinese originβ€”a banned import item in India.

    The DRI recorded a statement from Mr. Amit Kumar Bansal, which, according to the appellant, was obtained under coercion and threat. Mr. Bansal asserted that no Chinese fire crackers were present on the premises and that all fire crackers were of Indian origin, purchased from M/s Naresh Trading Co., Delhi. He provided purchase bills and supporting documents to substantiate his claim.

    Proceedings and Penalties

    Despite the evidence provided, the original adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Section 112(a) and 112(b) (Rs. 2,00,000) and Section 114AA (Rs. 10,00,000) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals), Jammu, upheld these penalties, leading to the present appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh.

    Key Arguments by the Appellant

    1. Coerced Statement: The appellant argued that the only evidence against him was a statement obtained under duress, which he later retracted.
    2. No Physical Evidence: No Chinese fire crackers were actually recovered from the premises.
    3. Legitimate Purchases: All fire crackers were purchased from a legitimate Indian supplier, with invoices and verification from the Excise and Taxation Department.
    4. Lack of Proper Investigation: The authorities did not conduct any further investigation beyond the coerced statement.

    Tribunal’s Observations and Decision

    After hearing both parties and reviewing the evidence, the Tribunal made several critical observations:

    • The entire case was built solely on the appellant’s statement, which was later retracted and not corroborated by any physical evidence.
    • The authorities failed to consider the retraction and the supporting purchase documents provided by the appellant.
    • There was a complete lack of investigation beyond the initial statement.

    Final Order: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed under Sections 112(a), 112(b), and 114AA were unsustainable in law. The appeal was allowed, and all penalties were set aside, granting consequential relief to the appellant.

    Implications of the Judgment

    This case underscores the importance of thorough investigation and the need for corroborative evidence in customs-related offenses. It also highlights the legal safeguards available to individuals against coerced confessions and arbitrary penalties.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Chandigarh’s decision in favor of M/s Amit Kumar Bansal sets a precedent for similar cases where penalties are imposed without substantial evidence. It reinforces the principle that justice must be based on facts and due process, not on uncorroborated statements or procedural lapses.

    This outcome not only brings relief to the appellant but also serves as a reminder to enforcement agencies to adhere strictly to legal standards in their investigations and adjudications.

    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

  • CESTAT Kolkata: No Interest Payable on Deferred Customs Duty for Capital Goods under MOOWR Scheme

    CESTAT Kolkata: No Interest Payable on Deferred Customs Duty for Capital Goods under MOOWR Scheme

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

    Date: 21.07.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata: No Interest Payable on Deferred Customs Duty for Capital Goods under MOOWR Scheme

    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 Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited. The case revolved around the levy of interest on customs duty for capital goods imported under the Manufacture and Other Operations in Warehouse Regulations, 2019 (MOOWR Scheme). This article provides a detailed analysis of the case, its legal context, and its implications for manufacturers utilizing the MOOWR scheme.

    Background: The MOOWR Scheme and Dalmia Cement’s Import

    The MOOWR Scheme, introduced by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), allows manufacturers to import capital goods into bonded warehouses without immediate payment of customs duty. Duty is deferred until the goods are cleared for domestic use. Dalmia Cement, a major cement manufacturer, imported a Cooler (gearbox) from Germany under this scheme, intending to use it in their manufacturing process.

    Upon import, the goods were warehoused without payment of duty. Later, due to operational reasons, Dalmia Cement cleared the goods for home consumption and paid the deferred customs duty. However, the Customs authorities also levied interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, which Dalmia Cement contested.

    Legal Dispute: Is Interest Payable on Deferred Duty?

    The core legal issue was whether interest under Section 61(2) is payable when capital goods, imported under the MOOWR scheme and intended for use in manufacturing, are cleared for home consumption.

    Dalmia Cement’s Arguments

    1. Intention to Use vs. Actual Use: Dalmia Cement argued that the law requires only an “intention to use” the capital goods in manufacturing, not actual usage, to qualify for duty deferment without interest.
    2. Supporting Precedents: The company cited Supreme Court judgments (e.g., State of Haryana vs. Dalmia Dadri Cement Ltd., Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, and BPL Display Devices Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise) that interpreted “for use” as “intended for use,” not actual use.
    3. CBIC Clarifications: Dalmia Cement referred to CBIC’s 2020 FAQ and public notices, which clarified that no interest is payable on capital goods cleared from a Section 65 warehouse for home consumption.

    Customs Department’s Position

    The Customs authorities relied on Paragraph 12 of CBIC Circular No. 34/2019, which states that interest is payable when goods are cleared for home consumption from a bonded warehouse, arguing that the benefit of interest-free deferment applies only if the goods are actually used in manufacturing.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision

    The Tribunal examined:

    • The language of Section 61(1)(a) of the Customs Act, which allows capital goods intended for use in manufacturing to remain in the warehouse until clearance.
    • The distinction between “intended for use” and “actual use,” as established by Supreme Court precedents.
    • Conflicting CBIC clarifications: the 2019 Circular vs. the 2020 FAQ.

    The Tribunal concluded:

    1. Intention Suffices: The law requires only an intention to use the goods in manufacturing, not actual usage, to avail the benefit of deferred duty without interest.
    2. Precedent Applies: Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions support this interpretation.
    3. Interest Not Payable: Since Dalmia Cement imported the goods with the intention to use them in manufacturing (as documented in their MOOWR license application), no interest was payable on the deferred duty when the goods were cleared for home consumption.

    The Tribunal set aside the order upholding the interest demand and allowed Dalmia Cement’s appeal, entitling them to a refund of the interest paid.

    Implications for Industry

    This decision provides clarity and relief for manufacturers using the MOOWR scheme:

    • Certainty in Duty Deferment: Manufacturers can import capital goods under MOOWR and clear them for home consumption without the risk of interest liability, provided the intention to use is documented.
    • Legal Precedent: The judgment reinforces the interpretation of “intended for use” in customs law, aligning with Supreme Court jurisprudence.
    • Operational Flexibility: Companies can adapt to operational changes without fear of retrospective interest demands, as long as their original intent to use the goods in manufacturing is clear.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Kolkata’s decision in favor of Dalmia Cement sets an important precedent for the application of the MOOWR scheme and the interpretation of interest liability under the Customs Act. It underscores the importance of legislative intent and provides much-needed clarity for businesses investing in India’s manufacturing sector.

    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

  • Madras HC Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on Huawei: Expiry of ADD Notifications for SEZ Units

    Madras HC Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on Huawei: Expiry of ADD Notifications for SEZ Units

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

    Date: 21.07.2026

    Madras HC Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on Huawei: Expiry of ADD Notifications for SEZ Units

    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 Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case involving Huawei Telecommunications (India) Company Private Limited and the Indian customs authorities, addressing the levy and refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on telecom equipment. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the implications for businesses operating in Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in India.

    Background: The Dispute Over Anti-Dumping Duty

    Huawei Telecommunications (India) operates a manufacturing unit in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in Chennai. The dispute arose when Indian customs authorities sought to levy ADD on the company’s clearances of Populated Circuit Board Assemblies (PCBAs) from the Flextronics SEZ Unit into the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) for specific periods, even after the expiry of the relevant notification authorizing such duty.

    Key Notifications Involved

    1. Notification 125/2010 – Cus. dated 16.12.2010: Imposed ADD for five years (08.12.2009 to 07.12.2014).
    2. Notification No.1/2015 – Cus. (ADD) dated 05.01.2015: Amended the earlier notification, but was issued after the original notification had lapsed.
    3. Notification No.15/2016 – Cus. (ADD) dated 26.04.2016: Imposed ADD for a new five-year period (26.04.2016 to 25.04.2021).

    Legal Proceedings and Arguments

    Huawei filed two writ petitions:

    • W.P.No.22770 of 2017: Challenged the show cause notice seeking to levy ADD for the period after the expiry of Notification 125/2010.
    • W.P.No.22771 of 2017: Sought a refund of ADD collected and the return of bank guarantees and personal bonds for the period after the notification’s lapse.

    The company argued that, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Others vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., ADD cannot be levied or extended through an amendment after the original notification has expired.

    The continuation of ADD must be imposed before the expiry of the notification, and any amendment after expiry is legally unsustainable.

    Court’s Analysis and Decision

    Key Issues Considered

    1. Maintainability of Writ Petition Against Show Cause Notice: The court recognized exceptions to the general rule against entertaining writ petitions at the show cause notice stage, especially when the law is settled by the Supreme Court.
    2. Validity of ADD Levy Based on Lapsed Notification: The court held that the amendment notification issued after the expiry of the principal notification was invalid. The demand for ADD for the period after 07.12.2014 was unsustainable.

    Rationale

    • The Supreme Court in Kumho Petrochemicals held that ADD notifications are temporary legislation and cannot be amended after expiry.
    • The continuation of ADD during a review period must occur before the original notification lapses.
    • The Delhi High Court’s decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, applied to Huawei’s case, binding all relevant authorities.

    Final Orders

    • The show cause notice seeking ADD for the period after 07.12.2014 was set aside.
    • The demand for ADD in the earlier show cause notice for the period from 08.12.2014 to 26.04.2016 was also set aside.
    • Huawei was granted liberty to pursue its refund application before the appropriate authority.

    Implications for Businesses

    1. Legal Certainty: The judgment reinforces that ADD cannot be retrospectively extended or levied after the expiry of the original notification.
    2. Refund Rights: Companies that paid ADD after the lapse of the relevant notification may be entitled to refunds, provided they follow due process.
    3. Precedent for SEZ Units: The decision provides clarity for SEZ units facing similar disputes with customs authorities.

    Conclusion

    The Madras High Court’s order in favor of Huawei Telecommunications sets a clear precedent on the temporal limits of anti-dumping duty notifications and the rights of businesses to challenge unlawful levies. Companies operating in SEZs should review their ADD payments and consider seeking refunds where duties were collected beyond the life of the relevant notification.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Customs Classification for Ophthalmic Instruments

    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

  • CESTAT Kolkata on Aluminium Formwork Classification

    CESTAT Kolkata on Aluminium Formwork Classification

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

    Date: 20.07.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata on Aluminium Formwork Classification

    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) Kolkata recently delivered a significant judgment in favor of M/s. Alcove Construction Private Limited regarding the classification and exemption of imported aluminium formwork structures. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the arguments presented, and the implications of the Tribunal’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    Alcove Construction imported “Aluminium Formwork Structure with Accessories” under three Bills-of-Entry in May and June 2019. The company claimed exemption under Serial No. 610 of Notification No. 152/2009-Cus. dated 31.12.2009, classifying the goods under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7610 90 10.

    Over a year later, customs authorities issued a Show Cause Notice, arguing that the goods should be classified under CTH 8480 60 00 (as moulds) rather than under 7610 90 10. This reclassification led to a demand for additional customs duty, interest, and a penalty totaling over Rs. 87 lakh.

    Key Arguments Presented

    Appellant (Alcove Construction)

    1. Nature of Goods: The company argued that the imported aluminium formwork structures are customized, reusable systems used for shuttering and supporting construction elements, not fixed-shape moulds. The formwork adapts to various building requirements and cannot be considered a traditional mould.
    2. Classification Justification: Alcove cited Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), which support classifying such structures under heading 7610, similar to scaffolding and shuttering equipment.
    3. Procedural Lapses: The appellant highlighted that the customs department relied on a Wikipedia definition without expert input and failed to specify in the Show Cause Notice which exemption conditions were allegedly unmet. This, they argued, violated principles of natural justice.
    4. Assessment Challenge: The demand for additional duty was made without first challenging the self-assessment of the Bills-of-Entry, which is a legal prerequisite.

    Respondent (Customs Department)

    1. Function as Moulds: The department maintained that the formwork acts as a mould since concrete is poured into it, thus justifying classification under 8480 60 00.
    2. Notification Denial: The department argued that the Show Cause Notice sufficiently notified the appellant about the denial of exemption benefits.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision

    The Tribunal carefully examined photographs and documentation provided by Alcove Construction, confirming that the aluminium formwork is a moveable, reusable system primarily made of aluminium. The Tribunal referenced the HSN Explanatory Notes, which clarify that equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, and propping (including aluminium structures) should be classified under heading 7610.

    Key findings included:

    1. Correct Classification: The Tribunal held that Alcove Construction correctly classified the goods under CTH 7610 90 10, not as moulds under 8480 60 00.
    2. Procedural Flaws: The customs department failed to challenge the self-assessment of the Bills-of-Entry before issuing a demand notice, making the demand unsustainable.
    3. Natural Justice: The Show Cause Notice did not specify which exemption conditions were unmet, denying the appellant a fair opportunity to defend their case.

    Outcome

    The CESTAT set aside the impugned order, allowed the appeal, and granted consequential relief to Alcove Construction. This decision underscores the importance of proper classification, adherence to procedural requirements, and upholding natural justice in customs matters.

    Implications for Importers

    • Accurate Classification: Importers should ensure that goods are classified based on their actual use and characteristics, supported by technical documentation and HSN notes.
    • Procedural Safeguards: Authorities must follow due process, including challenging self-assessments and providing clear reasons in Show Cause Notices.
    • Natural Justice: Importers have the right to a fair hearing and must be given specific reasons if exemption benefits are denied.

    This ruling serves as a precedent for similar disputes involving construction equipment and customs classification, reinforcing the need for clarity and fairness in customs proceedings.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Classification and Duty Exemption for Imported Aluminium Formwork Structures

    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 Chennai Clarifies Customs Classification for Ophthalmic Instruments

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Customs Classification for Ophthalmic Instruments

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

    Date: 20.07.2026

    CESTAT Chennai Clarifies Customs Classification for Ophthalmic Instruments

    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 and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chennai has provided significant clarity on the customs classification of specialized ophthalmic and medical instruments. The case involved M/s. Mehara Eyetech Pvt. Ltd., a Mumbai-based importer, and revolved around the correct tariff classification for imported Operation Microscopes, Lensmeters/Focimeters, and Chart Projectors. The outcome has important implications for importers, customs authorities, and the broader medical device industry.

    Background of the Dispute

    Between April 2018 and March 2023, Mehara Eyetech imported various ophthalmic instruments through Chennai ports, classifying them under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9018 5090 as “other ophthalmic instruments and appliances.” This classification was initially accepted by customs authorities. However, following an audit objection, the Customs Department alleged misclassification and sought to reclassify:

    • Operation Microscopes under CTH 9011 8000
    • Lensmeters under CTH 9031 8000
    • Chart Projectors under CTH 9008 5030

    This reclassification resulted in a demand for differential duty of nearly β‚Ή3.9 crore, along with interest, confiscation orders, redemption fine, and penalties for alleged wilful misstatement and suppression of facts.

    Key Arguments Presented

    Appellant (Mehara Eyetech)

    1. Correctness of Classification: Asserted that Heading 9018 specifically covers medical and ophthalmic instruments, supported by the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN) Explanatory Notes.
    2. HSN Exclusions and Inclusions: Pointed out that Heading 9011 explicitly excludes ophthalmic binocular microscopes, which are instead included under Heading 9018.
    3. Functional Use and Trade Understanding: Emphasized that the imported microscopes are designed for ophthalmic diagnosis and surgery, not general-purpose use.
    4. No Suppression or Wilful Misstatement: Highlighted that all imports were made under self-assessment, with full disclosure and regular submission of product catalogues to customs.
    5. Legal Precedents: Cited Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions supporting classification based on intended use, product literature, and HSN guidance.

    Revenue (Customs Department)

    1. Broader Functional Capability: Claimed that the microscopes could be used in various medical fields, not just ophthalmology, thus falling under Heading 9011.
    2. Lensmeters and Chart Projectors: Argued these should be classified as general measuring instruments (9031) and projectors (9008), not as ophthalmic instruments.
    3. Self-Assessment Responsibility: Asserted that importers are responsible for correct classification and that misclassification justified extended limitation and penalties.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Classification of Goods

    • Operation Microscopes: The Tribunal found that HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 9011 specifically exclude ophthalmic binocular-type microscopes, directing their classification under Heading 9018. Product catalogues confirmed these were specialized for ophthalmic surgery.
    • Lensmeters/Focimeters: Determined to be specialized ophthalmic diagnostic instruments, not general-purpose measuring devices, and thus classifiable under Heading 9018.
    • Chart Projectors: Recognized as integral to ophthalmic testing systems, not general image projectors, and included under Heading 9018.

    2. Legal Principles Applied

    • HSN Explanatory Notes: The Tribunal relied heavily on HSN guidance, as endorsed by the Supreme Court, to resolve classification disputes.
    • Primary Use and Essential Character: Classification must reflect the product’s primary function and intended use, not hypothetical alternate uses.
    • Consistency and Precedent: Noted that similar goods had been consistently classified under Heading 9018 in the past, with no change in law or product nature.

    3. Limitation, Confiscation, and Penalties

    • No Suppression or Wilful Misstatement: The Tribunal found that Mehara Eyetech had fully disclosed all relevant details, and customs officers had examined and accepted the classification at the time of import.
    • Interpretational Dispute: Held that the dispute was interpretational, not a case of misdeclaration or intent to evade duty.
    • No Basis for Extended Limitation or Penalties: Set aside the demand for differential duty, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties, as the legal requirements for such actions were not met.

    Implications of the Decision

    1. Clarity for Importers: The ruling reinforces the importance of HSN Explanatory Notes and product-specific literature in determining customs classification.
    2. Protection Against Retrospective Demands: Importers who have consistently disclosed and classified goods in line with accepted practice are protected from retrospective demands and penalties in the absence of suppression or fraud.
    3. Guidance for Customs Authorities: The decision underscores the need for customs to base reclassification on substantive changes in law or facts, not merely on audit objections or alternate interpretations.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Chennai’s decision in the Mehara Eyetech case provides a comprehensive legal framework for classifying specialized ophthalmic instruments under the Customs Tariff. By upholding the primacy of HSN Explanatory Notes, product function, and consistent assessment practice, the Tribunal has set a clear precedent that will benefit both importers and regulators in future classification disputes.

    Connected Matter

    Madras HC Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty Demand on Huawei: Expiry of ADD Notifications for SEZ Units

    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 Hyderabad- Aluminium Formwork Materials Classified as Aluminium Structures, Not Moulds

    CESTAT Hyderabad- Aluminium Formwork Materials Classified as Aluminium Structures, Not Moulds

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

    Date: 20.07.2026

    CESTAT Hyderabad- Aluminium Formwork Materials Classified as Aluminium Structures, Not Moulds

    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) Hyderabad recently delivered a significant order in the case of Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd, addressing the classification and customs duty applicable to imported Aluminium Formwork Materials (AFM). This article provides a detailed overview of the dispute, the legal arguments, and the Tribunal’s final decision, offering valuable insights for businesses involved in construction imports and customs compliance.

    Background of the Case

    Vijay Nirman Company Pvt Ltd, a prominent player in civil and infrastructure construction, imported AFM from Kumkang Kind Co Ltd, South Korea. The company classified these imports under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 76109090, claiming a nil rate of basic customs duty under Notification No. 152/2009-CUS (S.No.610). Customs authorities initially cleared the goods as per this classification and notification.

    However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) later issued a show cause notice, alleging misclassification. The department argued that the AFM should be classified under CTH 84806000 (moulds for mineral materials), not under CTH 76109090 (aluminium structures), and that the exemption notification was not applicable.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Correct Classification of AFM:
      • Appellant’s Stand: AFM are aluminium structures used as temporary shuttering in construction, fitting under CTH 76109090.
      • Department’s Stand: AFM function as moulds for concrete, thus falling under CTH 84806000.
    2. Eligibility for Exemption Notification:
      • The benefit of Notification No. 152/2009-CUS (S.No.610) was denied by the department based on the reclassification.

    Arguments Presented

    Appellant (Vijay Nirman Company)

    • Relied on previous Tribunal judgments (e.g., Alcove Construction Pvt Ltd) supporting classification under CTH 76109010.
    • Emphasized that AFM are custom-designed, reusable shuttering systems, not moulds, as their form and use change with each project.
    • Pointed out that the department relied on general definitions (e.g., Wikipedia) rather than expert opinions or technical evidence.
    • Argued that unless the assessment of Bills of Entry is challenged, no demand can be made.

    Department (Customs)

    • Cited HSN Explanatory Notes and purchase contracts describing the goods as formwork with steel supports and accessories.
    • Asserted that AFM’s essential character is that of a mould, as it temporarily retains concrete until it sets.
    • Referred to legal precedents and statutory provisions to support their classification.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Findings

    1. Distinction Between Formwork and Moulds:
      • The Tribunal clarified that while both terms are sometimes used interchangeably, formwork is a temporary structure used to shape and support concrete until it hardens, whereas moulds are typically used to create multiple copies of a specific item.
      • AFM is used in situ for building construction, is dismantled after use, and does not produce repeatable, standalone articles as moulds do.
    2. Interpretation of Tariff Headings:
      • CTH 7610 covers aluminium structures, including temporary frameworks used in construction.
      • CTH 8480 covers moulds for mineral materials, but only when used to produce discrete articles (e.g., slabs, tiles), not entire buildings.
      • The Tribunal found that AFM does not fit the definition of a mould under CTH 8480.
    3. Benefit of Ambiguity:
      • Citing Supreme Court jurisprudence, the Tribunal held that any ambiguity in classification should favor the assessee (importer), not the Revenue.
    4. Notification Eligibility:
      • Since AFM is classifiable under CTH 76109090, the exemption under Notification No. 152/2009-CUS (S.No.610) applies.
      • The department failed to provide specific reasons for denying the notification benefit in the show cause notice.

    Final Order and Implications

    • The Tribunal set aside the order of the Adjudicating Authority, holding that AFM is rightly classifiable under CTH 76109090.
    • Vijay Nirman Company is entitled to the exemption notification, and the demand for differential duty is not sustainable.
    • The decision reinforces the importance of precise classification and the need for technical evidence in customs disputes.

    Key Takeaways for Importers and Construction Companies

    1. Understand Product Functionality: Clearly distinguish between temporary construction aids (formwork) and manufacturing tools (moulds) for correct tariff classification.
    2. Document Usage and Design: Maintain detailed records and technical documentation to support the intended use and classification of imported goods.
    3. Monitor Legal Precedents: Stay updated on relevant Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions, as these can significantly impact classification and duty liability.
    4. Challenge Unsubstantiated Demands: If customs authorities rely on general definitions or lack technical evidence, importers should contest such demands with factual and legal support.

    This case sets a precedent for the classification of construction-related imports and highlights the need for clarity and technical accuracy in customs matters.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Classification and Duty Exemption for Imported Aluminium Formwork Structures

    Source: CESTAT Hyderabad

    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

  • Gujarat High Court Orders IGST Refund on Unconstitutional Ocean Freight Levy

    Gujarat High Court Orders IGST Refund on Unconstitutional Ocean Freight Levy

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

    Date: 18.07.2026

    Gujarat High Court Orders IGST Refund on Unconstitutional Ocean Freight Levy

    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 Gujarat High Court’s recent judgment in the case of M/s Comsol Energy Private Limited vs. State of Gujarat has significant implications for businesses seeking refunds of Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) paid under the reverse charge mechanism (RCM) on ocean freight. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal principles involved, and the broader impact on taxpayers and tax administration.

    Background of the Case

    M/s Comsol Energy Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the rejection of their IGST refund claims. The company had paid IGST on ocean freight under RCM, following government notifications that were later declared unconstitutional by the Gujarat High Court in the landmark Mohit Minerals case. After this decision, Comsol Energy sought a refund of Rs. 93.54 lakhs for IGST paid in February and March 2018.

    However, the tax authorities issued deficiency memos, rejecting the refund claims on the grounds that they were not filed within the statutory time limit under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, and that there was no specific category for such refunds.

    Key Legal Issues

    1. Legislative Competency and Constitutionality
      • The Court reaffirmed its earlier decision that the notifications imposing IGST on ocean freight under RCM lacked legislative competency and were unconstitutional.
      • Article 265 of the Constitution of India mandates that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Any tax collected without such authority must be refunded.
    2. Applicability of Refund Provisions
      • The authorities argued that Section 54 of the CGST Act, which prescribes a time limit for refund claims, applied to the case.
      • The Court held that since the IGST was collected without authority of law, it did not qualify as a ‘tax’ under the Act. Therefore, Section 54 did not apply.
      • Instead, Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which deals with relief from the consequences of a mistake, was deemed applicable. This allows a three-year limitation period starting from the date the mistake is discovered.
    3. Precedents Cited
      • The judgment referenced several key cases:
        • State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bhailal Bhai: Payments made under a mistake of law must be refunded by the government.
        • Binani Cement Ltd. vs. Union of India: Refunds of duties collected without authority are not bound by special law limitations; the Limitation Act applies.
        • Joshi Technology International vs. Union of India: Refund claims for amounts paid under mistake of law are outside the purview of the enactment and governed by the Limitation Act.
        • 3E Infotech Ltd. vs. CESTAT: Service tax paid by mistake must be refunded, regardless of statutory time limits.

    Court’s Decision and Directions

    • The High Court quashed the deficiency memos rejecting the refund claims.
    • It directed the tax authorities to process the refund application for Rs. 93.54 lakhs, along with simple interest at 6% per annum.
    • The authorities were instructed not to raise technical objections and to complete the process by a specified deadline.

    Implications for Taxpayers

    1. Refunds for Unconstitutional Levies
      • Taxpayers who have paid taxes under notifications or provisions later declared unconstitutional are entitled to refunds, even if the statutory time limit under the GST Act has expired.
    2. Limitation Period
      • The three-year limitation period under the Limitation Act applies, starting from when the taxpayer becomes aware of the mistake.
    3. Interest on Refunds
      • Taxpayers are entitled to interest on the refunded amount, reinforcing the principle that the government cannot unjustly retain money collected without authority.
    4. No Technical Barriers
      • Tax authorities must process such refund claims without raising technical or procedural objections, ensuring speedy redressal for taxpayers.

    Conclusion

    This judgment strengthens the rights of taxpayers to claim refunds for taxes paid under unconstitutional provisions. It clarifies that the general law of limitation applies in such cases, and that the government is obligated to return amounts collected without authority, with interest. Businesses affected by similar issues should review their tax payments and consider seeking refunds where appropriate.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Bangalore Allows Refund: Quashing of Unconstitutional Export Duty on SEZ Supplies

    Source: Gujarat 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 Kolkata Clarifies Classification and Duty Exemption for Imported Aluminium Formwork Structures

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Classification and Duty Exemption for Imported Aluminium Formwork Structures

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

    Date: 18.07.2026

    CESTAT Kolkata Clarifies Classification and Duty Exemption for Imported Aluminium Formwork Structures

    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 order regarding the classification and duty exemption of imported aluminium formwork structures used in construction. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the arguments presented, and the implications of the tribunal’s decision.

    Background of the Case

    M/s. P.S. Srijan Heights Developers imported consignments of “Aluminium Formwork Structure with Accessories” for use in construction projects. The company classified these goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 76109010 and claimed exemption benefits under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs (as amended). The importer also paid IGST at 18% under the relevant IGST notification.

    However, the Customs Department challenged this classification, arguing that the goods should be classified under Tariff 84806000 (as moulds) and that a different exemption and IGST rate should apply. The department’s position was based on the fact that the formwork structures are assembled at construction sites, used to shape concrete, and then removed and reused, suggesting they function as moulds rather than permanent structures.

    Key Issues and Arguments

    Appellant’s Position

    1. Correct Classification: The appellant maintained that the aluminium formwork structures are correctly classified under CTH 76109010, supported by:
      • Invoices and certificates of origin from the Korean Chamber of Commerce & Industry.
      • References to the Indian Trade Portal and previous tribunal decisions (e.g., Ranjita Agencies and Vima Industrial Plastics cases).
    2. Specific vs. General Classification: The appellant argued that Tariff Heading 7610 (aluminium structures) is more specific than 8480 (moulds), and the goods are predominantly aluminium panels designed for structural use.
    3. Precedent Cases: The appellant cited recent tribunal decisions, including:
      • Alcove Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Port): Held that similar goods are classifiable under CTH 76109010.
      • Vijay Nirman Co. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vishakapatnam: Reaffirmed the above classification.

    Department’s Position

    • The department argued that the goods function as moulds since they are used to shape concrete and are removed after use, making them eligible for classification under 84806000.
    • They maintained that the confirmed demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty was justified.

    Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision

    The tribunal carefully examined:

    • The explanatory notes under the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), which clarify that equipment for scaffolding, shuttering, and propping (including aluminium structures) falls under heading 7610.
    • The distinction between moulds (which create discrete items for later assembly) and formwork structures (which act as temporary supports for in-situ construction).

    The tribunal found that:

    • The aluminium formwork structures are not moulds in the sense intended by heading 8480. Instead, they are temporary structures used to support concrete until it sets, after which they are removed and reused.
    • The goods are best classified under CTH 76109010, as supported by previous tribunal decisions and the explanatory notes.

    Outcome and Implications

    • The tribunal set aside the order of the lower authorities, allowing the appeal and confirming that the goods are classifiable under CTH 76109010.
    • The appellant is entitled to the claimed exemption and the applicable IGST rate as originally declared.
    • This decision provides clarity for importers of aluminium formwork structures, ensuring consistent classification and duty treatment in line with established legal precedent.

    Conclusion

    The CESTAT Kolkata’s ruling reinforces the principle that aluminium formwork structures used in construction are to be classified as structures under CTH 76109010, not as moulds. This distinction is crucial for determining the correct duty exemptions and IGST rates, and the decision sets a clear precedent for similar cases in the future.

    Connected Matter

    CESTAT Hyderabad- Aluminium Formwork Materials Classified as Aluminium Structures, Not Moulds

    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