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: #Imports

  • CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Duty Exemption for Phoenix Medicare

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Duty Exemption for Phoenix Medicare

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 08.07.2025

    CESTAT Bangalore Upholds Duty Exemption for Phoenix Medicare

    Background

    Phoenix Medicare Pvt. Ltd. imported autosuture surgical tools such as staplers, trocars, and protak devices, classifying them under CTH 9018 9099 and claimed concessional duty benefits under:

    • Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 (Sl. No. 82, List 37)
    • Notification No. 6/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (Sl. No. 61(b))

    The assessing officer denied the exemption, contending that the goods were surgical toolsβ€”not accessoriesβ€”and hence were not covered under the relevant notifications.

    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 Bangalore

    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- Exemption Upheld in Marble Slabs Classification Dispute

    CESTAT Chennai- Exemption Upheld in Marble Slabs Classification Dispute

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai- Exemption Upheld in Marble Slabs Classification Dispute

    Case Background

    The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleged that the appellants wrongly classified polished (honed) marble slabs under CTH 6802 2110 and availed exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE, whereas the goods were allegedly classifiable under CTH 6802 2190, attracting a higher rate of CVD (16%).

    The adjudicating authority reclassified the goods, raised differential duty demands (β‚Ή58+ lakh for Akash Stone), imposed equivalent penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and held the benefit of exemption notification to be inapplicable.

    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 Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Mumbai Rejected Revenue Appeals and Upholds SAD Refund

    CESTAT Mumbai Rejected Revenue Appeals and Upholds SAD Refund

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2025

    CESTAT Mumbai Rejected Revenue Appeals and Upholds SAD Refund

    Background of the Case

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

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

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

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

    Source: CESTAT Mumbai

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Small Jewellers

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Small Jewellers

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 07.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi Sets Aside Penalties on Small Jewellers

    Background

    The appellantsβ€”small-scale jewellers from Panipat, Haryanaβ€”were caught in a DRI-led raid at a Karol Bagh shop in 2018. Large quantities of gold bars of foreign origin and Indian currency exceeding β‚Ή3 crore were seized. The jewellers were found with cash amounts ranging between β‚Ή3.1 lakhs and β‚Ή9.5 lakhs, allegedly meant to buy gold from a person.

    The Customs Department issued a Show Cause Notice alleging that the appellants were conspirators in the smuggling of foreign-origin gold, proposing confiscation of currency under Section 121 and penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

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

    Source: CESTAT Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Allahabad- Customs Cannot Reject Foreign COO Without Verification

    CESTAT Allahabad- Customs Cannot Reject Foreign COO Without Verification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.07.2025

    CESTAT Allahabad- Customs Cannot Reject Foreign COO Without Verification

    Background

    The case stemmed from the import of dry chopped dates by M/s Navarshi Overseas through ICD Dadri, which were allegedly of Pakistan origin but declared as UAE origin. The customs department invoked Notification No. 05/2019-Cus dated 16.02.2019, which imposed 200% customs duty on Pakistani-origin goods following the Pulwama terror attack.

    Based on this, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Noida, had:

    • Rejected the claimed country of origin (UAE)
    • Confiscated the goods
    • Imposed β‚Ή1 lakh redemption fine
    • Imposed personal penalties on multiple parties including CHA employees, traders, and facilitators

    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 Allahabad

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Chandigarh- FSSAI Standards Not Mandatory for Basmati Rice Exports

    CESTAT Chandigarh- FSSAI Standards Not Mandatory for Basmati Rice Exports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 05.07.2025

    CESTAT Chandigarh- FSSAI Standards Not Mandatory for Basmati Rice Exports

    Background of the Case

    M/s Hightop Trading Pvt. Ltd., a rice exporter registered with APEDA, faced punitive action by Customs, Ludhiana, for allegedly misdeclaring β€œnon-basmati rice” as β€œPUSA Brown Basmati Rice” under CTH 1006 3020.

    The customs authorities, relying on a CRCL lab report, claimed the exported rice failed to meet certain parameters under FSSAI standards. Consequently, duty demand, confiscation, penalty, and redemption fine totaling over β‚Ή2 crore were imposed.

    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 Chandigarh

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • CESTAT Delhi- Refund of ADD Permissible Despite Clerical Self-Assessment Error

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of ADD Permissible Despite Clerical Self-Assessment Error

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.07.2025

    CESTAT Delhi- Refund of ADD Permissible Despite Clerical Self-Assessment Error

    The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi has ruled that the refund of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) paid due to a clerical self-assessment error is admissible, provided substantive conditions are met. The Tribunal held that procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive rights, especially when the excess duty paid is evident from the Bill of Entry and supported by a valid exemption.

    Case Background

    • Appellant: Uflex Limited, Noida
    • Import: 29 boxes of Aluminium Foil (6.3 microns) from China
    • Bill of Entry: No. 2535627 dated 21.09.2022
    • Declared Value: β‚Ή68.29 lakh
    • Duty Paid: Basic Customs Duty, SWS, IGST, and ADD, despite ADD being exempted for 6.3-micron aluminium foil under Notification No. 51/2021-Cus (ADD) dated 16.09.2021
    • Refund Sought: β‚Ή7,14,018/- (β‚Ή6,05,100 ADD + β‚Ή1,08,918 IGST)

    Due to a clerical error, Uflex self-assessed and paid ADD. The company filed:

    • A request for reassessment on 12.10.2022
    • A refund application on 13.10.2022

    Both were rejected, citing:

    • Finality of self-assessment under Section 17 of the Customs Act
    • Supreme Court decisions in Priya Blue Industries and ITC Ltd.

    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 Delhi

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Madras High Court Quashes Customs Demand for EODCs Issued After 17 Years

    Madras High Court Quashes Customs Demand for EODCs Issued After 17 Years

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.07.2025

    Madras High Court Quashes Customs Demand for EODCs Issued After 17 Years

    The Madras High Court has quashed a Bond Enforcement cum Demand Notice issued by the Customs Department after a 17-year delay, citing it as inordinate and unreasonable. The case, filed by M/s Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., involved non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) under the Advance Authorisation Scheme.

    Background of the Case

    • Petitioner: M/s Chemplast Sanmar Ltd., a star export house and manufacturer of specialty chemicals
    • Period of Dispute: Imports made between 1998 and 2000 under 24 Advance Licences issued by DGFT
    • Customs Action: Issued show cause cum demand notice in 2019β€”17 years later, citing non-submission of EODCs
    • Petitioner’s Defense:
      • Produced EODCs for 13 out of 24 licences
      • Cited inability to retrieve remaining EODCs due to passage of time
      • Argued that such a long delay is unfair and violates principles of natural justice

    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: Madras High Court

    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 Rules Production Norms Can’t Justify Excise Demand Without Proof

    CESTAT Chennai Rules Production Norms Can’t Justify Excise Demand Without Proof

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 04.07.2025

    CESTAT Chennai Rules Production Norms Can’t Justify Excise Demand Without Proof

    The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai has delivered a major relief to M/s Adsorbent Carbons Pvt. Ltd., Tuticorin, by dismissing the Revenue’s appeal and allowing the assessee’s cross appeals. The Tribunal found no basis for the allegations of clandestine removal of Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) and held that duty demands based on unverified production norms were unsustainable.

    Case Background

    • The appellant manufactures Granulated Activated Carbon from coconut shells.
    • The case arose from a series of show cause notices (SCNs) alleging that the assessee failed to maintain proper production records, particularly absorption capacity data, as required under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
    • The department alleged clandestine removal, based on assumptions from norms laid down by the Coconut Development Board.
    • Original demands of over β‚Ή32 lakh in Central Excise Duty along with interest and penalty were confirmed in 2016.
    • Later, fresh demands were raised for subsequent periods.

    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 Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Madras HC Affirms DGFT’s Authority on Capital Goods Classification Under EPCG

    Madras HC Affirms DGFT’s Authority on Capital Goods Classification Under EPCG

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 03.07.2025

    Madras HC Affirms DGFT’s Authority on Capital Goods Classification Under EPCG

    The Madras High Court reaffirmed that the Customs Department cannot override the classification of capital goods as determined by the DGFT under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. The Court held that the customs authorities are bound by the EPCG licence issued by the DGFT unless it has been withdrawn or proved fraudulent.

    Background of the Case

    The appellant, M/s. Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd., imported lighting equipment and fittings in 1999 under an EPCG licence issued by the DGFT, which categorically classified the goods as capital goods. Despite this, the customs authorities denied concessional duty benefit, claiming the goods did not qualify as capital goods under Notification No. 28/97-Cus dated 01.04.1997.

    The case underwent prolonged litigation for over two decades, involving:

    • Denial of concessional duty in 1999.
    • Multiple rounds of appeals before the CESTAT.
    • Remand by the CESTAT following CBEC Circular No. 62/2002, which favoured importers like hotels using goods for rendering services.
    • Refund finally granted in 2018, but interest on delayed refund remained disputed.

    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: Madras High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com